THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. W. C. BOYER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

body {
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size:80%;
background-color:#FFFFFF;
margin:0 2% 0 2%;
text-align: justify;
}
h1 {
font-family:times;
}
h2 {
background-color:#cccccc;
padding:10px 0 10px 0;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
}
h3 {
font-weight: bold;
text-transform: uppercase;
text-align: center;
}
div#footer
{
font-size:9px;
}The Attorney General in his brief filed in thin case on appeal recommends the
acquittal of the defendant and appellant, on the ground that the evidence is not
sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

We agree with tha Attorney-General that the manifest contradictions and
inconsistencies in tha testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution put in
doubt the truth of some of the material facts as to which they testified, and
that on the whole record a conviction cannot be maintained.

There can be no question that the husband of the complaining witness was
enraged to a degree, as a result of the insistent demands of the accused for the
payment of a debt which the accused claimed to be due him. This is shown by the
undisputed fact that while the parties were discussing the alleged indebtedness,
this man suddenly drew his bolo, rushed at his own dog which seemed to anger him
by its loud barking, and killed it.

There seems to be no reason to doubt that the struggle described by the
various witnesses occurred as this man was returning to the house after killing
the dog, and we think that the weight of the evidence maintains the contentions
of the accused that all that occurred thereafter was the result of the
justifiable attempt on the part of the accused and his companions to disarm the
infuriated man.

The complaining witness in attempting to aid her husband, and to prevent the
accused from securing the weapon appears either to have slipped or fallen on the
ground or to have been pushed over in the melee. In neither case do we think the
accused can be held criminally responsible for the slight injuries she received
as a result of the fall. Giving the accused the benefit of any doubt which may
be raised by the conflicting testimony of the eye-witnesses, we are satisfied
that there was a reasonable necessity for all that he did in his attempt to
disarm the husband ofthe complaining witness.

The judgment entered in the court below, convicting and sentencing the
accused should be reversed, and he should be acquitted and his bond exonerated,
with the costs of both instances de oficio.

It is so ordered.