Instructions prepared by Louis Lingg for the jury and given to the Court. Refused by the court. Lingg argued that the fact that he may have manufactured the bomb that killed Mathias Degan was not enough to warrant a conviction in the case even if the proof that he did create the bomb existed beyond a reasonable doubt.

And the defendant Louis Linng further asked the court to give in his behalf particularly the following instruction, to wit:

It is not enough to warrant the conviction of the defendant Lingg that he may have manufactured the bomb, the explosion of which killed Matthias J. Degan. He must have aided, abetted or advised the exploding of the bomb, or of the doing of some illegal act or the doing of a legal act in an unlawful manner in the furtherance of which, and as incident thereto, the same was exploded and said Degan killed. If, as to the defendant Lingg, the jury should find beyond all reasonable doubt that he did in fact manudacture said bomb, but are not satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he aided, advised, counselled or abetted the throwing of said missile, or the doing of any unlawful act which resulted in the explosion of said bomb, your verdict should acquit him, so far as the establishment of his guilt is attempted by the manufacture of said missile or bomb. (Refused.)

Which instruction the court marked as given, and proceeded to read the same to the jury until he had read the same about half way through, when the court stopped and remarked in the presence of the jury, in effect, that an instruction often impressed one differently when read aloud, and thereupon suspended the reading of said instruction and marked the same "Refused," and refused to give the said instruction to the jury in the presence of the jury.

To which action of the court, and each and every part thereof, said defendant Louis Lingg then and there excepted.