OCR Text |
Show THE IIEAVEK TRIAL. Charge to judge Horeman'a the Jury. L S. L. Hera'.d Special dispatch te Beaver, 3. this afternoen. At half past 2 o'clock commenced charging Judze Boremau court The case. Lee th. in Ibe jury ro!m was crowded with spectators, who manifested the most excited and intense said: interest. Judge Doreman : The Gsntlembn of THE Jcbt tbe for prosecution of testimony an end, the and defense being now at to aid ia order duty does lay upon me, conclusion correct a at you in arriving the in your verdict, to instruct you upon to and give law applicable to the case, and advice as the you such suggestions necessities of the case seem to require. What I siy upon questions of law is reupon you, bin what I state is not you. fact upon obligatory specting The court is the sole judge of the law of the case, but you are the sole judees of the facts, and also of the credibility of witnesses. The Mountain Meadow massacre, which this case has caused for the first time to be investigated, was a crime of appalling magnitude, planned ferociand carried out with demon-lik- e in mjdern days or ty, unparalelled civilized people, and it is of among d interest by reason of its enormity and its long concealment. There is n dispute as to the facts of the massacre at the time and place specified; it is charged, however, that this defendant was a participant and leader in this bloody work, and upon this charge he is now upon his trial before you. The prisoner at the bar, John D. Lee, is charged with this crime, with Wm. H, Dame, Isaac C. Haight, John M. Higbee, Sam-- 1 George Adair, jun., Elliott Wilden, uel Judes, Phillip K. Smith and W. C. Stewart, but only the defendant Lee is sow upon trial, and it is no concern of this jury whether any or all of the other defendants be arrested and tried or not; but it is only reasonable to suppose that the ethers will be arrested and tried as speedily as it is possible to be done. You hive only to do with the innocence or guilt of this defendant. In order to ranch the truth in regard to the prisoner's guilt or innocence, it is perhaps the most natural the mascaere itself not being disputed to inquire, first, as to whether there was any combination of parties m planning and executing this terrible deed, and if there was such a combination and joint action, then whether the parties, or any of tbem indicted with the prisoner, were ia this combination, if so, then was the defendant a party to such combiaation? If from the evidence you find there was such a con eert of action and co operation among parties charged, or a number of them, and that the prisoner was jointly acting with thsm, he is guilty even though it night net appear that be with his own hands did any ef the killing. If those the who were did shooting only guilty and killing with their own hands, then in but few cases of this kind could the leaders be reached. The rank and file alone would suffer. It is not necessary to be shown that defendant did, with his own hands, any of the killing, but if the killing was done by those with whom hr was though his part was not to do any of the killing, he is guilty, and if it has been, in your opinionfshown by evidence that he actually did any of tbe killing, that fact will be taken into consideration; if, however, you find from tbe evidence, that there was no combination or agreement to joint action, then no aot of any of the other parties would be the defendant's unless it was done by his own direction or consent. Ia ascertaining whether such combination existed it is not necessary that tbe evidence should show any express agree-meit is sufficient that the acts, cause and conduct of the parties charged, showed that an understanding existed and that they were operating jointly for the accomplishment of some end, and if the evidence, in your judgment, shows others than those charged, acted and cooperated with those, then the prisoner would be held responsible for their acts, as they would be for his acts in pursuThe ance of their commen purpose. work of any was the work of all, and if the parties engaged were allotted to different parts in the accomplishment of their joint purpose, some to do ene thing, tome anether, some to stand guard, some to drive wagons, some to kill and some to do other parts of the common work, all are guiltyjtbey all operated to secure one end the slaughter of a number of human beings, men, women, and child-teIf you believe from the evidence that the prisoner was at the massacre, then the question arises, was he there for an innocent purpose, and why did he go there? and if you believe from the evideace that he participated to any extent in the accomplishment of the common object, it is for you to say from the evidence why he so participated. It is claimed for the defendant that the Indians were very much incensed at tnose emigrants. , If this oe true, ana that a great number of Indians were engaged with the whites in the massacre aad there is no doubt that very many Indians did participate it is no defence to the whites for their participation. There is no evidence that any force was Med, to compel any white man to join in the. murder, nor is U shown that any Wilts paaa had any just came for en intr-ductio- n gaging is these murders, aBd the only pretended reason is that tae Indians were greatly incensed at the emigrants, but that is not a valid reason for the whites engaging in tbe massacre, nor does the evidence show any good ground for the Indians engaging in the inassa ere; but as to that question you are not called upon to decide. If from the evidence you believe that the Indians were and acting in concert with the whites in the accomplishment of the destruction ef the emigrants, it but makes a more vivid picture of the enormity and brutality of the inhuman work. The charge in this case is murder, but it is not only the killing of a human being that is murder. Besides the two degrees of murder, there is manslaughter and also justifiable or excusable homicide. Murder is the killing of any human being with malice aforethought, either express or implied. Malice is a revengful act, done intentionally and without good cause or excuse. If, there-toryou believe from the evidence that the killing in this instance was wilful, deliberate and premeditated, killing was in pursuance of a common design or purpose, to which common purpose the defendant was a party, he is guilty of murder in the first degree, and you will so find. Malice is an essential ingredi ent in the killing to constitute the crime of murder, but may be implied from the acts, course and conduct of the parties. In most cases malice is not susceptible of direct proof, but may be established by inferences, more or less strong, to be drawn from the facts and circumstances connected with the killing and which indicate the disposition or state of mind with which tbe killing was done. If, however, you could find from the evidence that the killing was done with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied, but was not wilful, deliberate and premeditated, it would be murder in the second degree; and if the killing was unlawful, but you find from the evidence that there was malice, the offense is of a higher grade than manslaughter, and if there was malice and the act was wilful, deliberate and premeditated, it cannot be murder in the second degree, but is of a higher grade still, and is murder in the first degree. Then, in that case, it is murder in the first degree or nothing. That is, if it be not murder in the first degree, it can only be justifiable homi cide or excusable homicide. To be just ifiable homicide it must have first arisen from unavoidable necessity, without any will, intention orVlesire, and without any inadvertance in the party killing, and therefore without blame, as.for example, the execution, according to law, of a criminal who has been lawfully sentenced to be hanged; or, aeoond, it must have been committed far the advance ment of publio justice; for example, if an officer is assaulted ; and resisted, ana should kill his assailant; there is no evi dence which could be classed under either of these heads ofjustifiable homi cide. A homicide can be excused only in twe ways first, when the act is what is called misadventure; that is, where. in doing a lawful act, the party without any intent to hurt, unfortunately kills another; second, wLen a party acting in kills another person. There ia no evidence that these were killed while their assailants were doing a law ful act, nor is there any evidence that those who did the killing were acting in self defense, or in defense of their families or property. If, therefore, as I have stated, you find from the evidence that the killing was done wilfully, deliberately and pre- meditatedly and with malice afore thought, you will find the defendant guilty, and if yon find from the evi dence that it was not.done wilfully, de liberatedly and premeditatedlyand with malice aforethought, jou will acquit the prisoner. The burden of proof of the defendant's guilt rests upon the prose tution, and it is for you to say whether they have made out a case or not. in reaching a conclusion as to the prison er s guilt or innocence, it is not neces sary that it be shown that all or a great number of persons were killed, but it is sufficient if from the evidence you nnd that one human being was killed, pre vided the killing shall have been done by combination; nor is it neceseary that the name or names of those killed should be shown; but if any of them were killed in manner and form as charged, it is sufficient. Before you can find the prisoner guilty you mast, from the evidence, be lieve beyond a reasonable doubt that the prisoner is guilty, and taking the whole evidence together it must exclude every ether hypothesis but the guilt of the prisoner. A reasonable douDt is oniy such a one as would arise in the .minds of reasonable men, such as you are who are selected, because it is supposed and expected that you are reasonable men and compelled to try such a question Proot beyond tbe peBsibility ot a doubt is net required, because such prooi aev er can be made. It is not necessary to show to you that it is not possible that the prisoner is innocent to show beyond all possibility of a doubt that he is guilty, but it is required that the prose cution produce such evidence mat wnen you look it over as reasonable men, you do not doubt the prisoner's guilt that tbe evidence produces in your minus an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the cuilt of tbe defendant. Preof be yond a reasonable doubt, is something more than the preponderance oi evi(nnt- - a nreDonderance of evidence will do, ta continue, a verdiot ia a citU case, e, wide-sprea- self-defen- se at -- a. 1 but not so in a criminal case. You your guides. Be careful to do right. "I trust," paid the Archbishop of must be satisfied from the evidence, be lour duty is not only to tbe at prisoner to the Saltan cf Zanzibar, Canterbury reasonable the of doubt, the bar, but also te tbe people and your yond any fair, "that defendant s guilt; you must have an own consciences. your Your action will be Highness will not object abiding conviction to a moral certainty ooked to with great interest, far and to HritUh missionaries baring access of his guilt er you snouia aqmt him; but near, and it behooves you to act candidly, to your dominious. "Certainly not ' absolute certainty of guilt is not neces- carefully aad conscientiously. tho Sultan replied. "I think co obsary moral certainty is sufficient. At the close of the judge's charge, stacle should be placed ia the way of I have before stated, District-AttorneJurors are, Carey opened the ar- so an as ihe English be event the sole judges of the credibility of wit gument, briefly great reviewing tbe testimony. nesses, and it is for you to eay upon Sutherland followed with a diffuseepeech, ing brought to a knowledge of the your oaths what degree of credit is due mainly devoted to breaking down the true faith. Let them come, and tor to the testimony of each witness, and it testimony of Klingen Smith. The court learned men shall instruct them." is for you to say upon your oaths wheadjourned at 5 p.m. .leaving Sutherland's ther you deem the testimony of any wit argument unfinished; The golden oriflamme of day was ness unworthy of belief. In order the more specifically to give the law to you, sinking behind the western hills and I will read the instructions given; first, landscape with it HEAVER TRIAL. glorifying the when such instructions as are asked by the she lilted her parting rays, prosecution as I have allowed : wash-tuarms the out of shook off Close ETideuee for First To authorize the jury to find the festoons of suds that foamy the prisoner guilty, his guilt must be clung Defence. to them, and gating indignantly at a proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof which convinces and directs the (Special dispatch to S. L. Herald.) pile of her husband's liueu, observed, satisfies reason and the understanding "Two shirts a week! That's more 2. Beaver, and judgment of those who are bound to than I This in can stand. Now let him defendant's morning counsel, act conscientiously upon it, is proof be the Lee case, offered the depositions of wash 'em himself." yond a reasonable doubt, if it leaves in the mind an abiding connection to a Urignam loung and George A. Smith, taken in Salt Lake City, but the prose''Why, Jennie, you look good moral certainty of the truth of the cution sustained the court objecting, enough to eat," said a loving husband charge. The other instructions we con- thesi, refusing to admit the depositions to his wife one dense as follows: morning at Ireakfait. Mcrarlane recalled, and testified Second That mere possible doubt is as John I'm "Well, to the residences of Curtis, Mangram, eating as fast as I cau, not a reasonable doubt. ain't I?" McMurdy, the Harrisons, Pearce and Third That it is not necssary to prove Shirts. Lee actually killed any one of the emiThe prisoner's counsel announced that grants with bis own hand, but if he was they had no more evidence, the prose' r, present and aided and abetted the cution said they would call no one in re it is sufficient. and the evidence was closed. Fourth Tho jury must utterly disre buttal, All of the 'afternoon has been con gard the ruled out testimony. sumed in on the propositions Fifth It is not necessary to prove submitted arguments GENERAL AGENT IN oounsel for the oourt tbe by that a person named John Smith was to charge the jury. The case will not killed at the massacre in order to con to the jury before Thursday night. go Montana ami vict Leeif the jury believes there was next case to be tried is that of W. Utah, Idaho, Xevaila one or more of the emigrants killed by II. Ibe Dame. It will be taken up immedi Lee, or that be aided and abetted in the Lee's is disposed of. after ately killing of the emigrants, whose names are unknown. bixth Une may be principal in a Christ- murder without doing the deed with his CELEBRATED laus. if and be own hand; it is enough aided abetted the act; bo, if the jury believe, From a Constantinople letter in the beyond a reasonable doubt, that either Boston Advertiser. acted Lee and any of the defendants malice and with aforethought, jointly Nothing has surprised me more then tbe jury must find a verdict of mur der in the first degree. The burden ef than the contrast this city presents proving that tbe killing was wilful rests to most Luropcan and American upon the prosecution, which it must cities in the way of temperance. Wine BEArEUS AND MOWKItS, show beyond a reasonable doubt. In de and stimulants are forbidden in the termining these facts the jury should Koran, and coffee is the universal work to tbe fact of tbe killing in con SWEEPSTAKES THRESHERS drink everywhere. At all the tcalat nection with ths attending tacts as or steamboat landings on the Bbown by the evidence. The instructions for the defense were nothing but coffee Turkish Furst & Drudley niven, which we condense as follows coffee is to bo had for drink at the First There must be a union ef or numerous restaurants that line its joint operation of the act and intention, banks. A party of Knglish, returnor, criminal negligence. from iono of Egypt, spent a day in Stam-boSesond The presumption ing eence prevails, and is to be destroyed by vowing the sights. They told such an amount ef evidence ef guilt as me they made diligent search for A Full Stock of is calculated to produce the opposite obnot could something to drink, but belief. beer nothing Third The circumstance must ex tain een a glass of coffee. In the opposite on but Para, olude to a moral certainty every hypo side of the Horn, the European secthesis but that of cuilt. Fourth Dsfining at length what is a tion, occasionally, though rarely, a AND reasonable doubt. restaurant may be found where wines Fifth The establishment of a prima and liquors are sold. This may, per facie case merely does not take away the WAGON haps, bt accounted for in part from presumption of inaocence. 8ixth Tbe charge of combination of the fact that no one can soil without the defendant with other persons to a license, and licenses are very high. Iron, Steel, and commit the crime U a question of fact Tobacco chewing seems to be unto be found by the jury. If the jury here. I havo not seen an in known believe there was ne such combination, since I nave been here, nor a stance and that the defendant took no part and tbe did not kill any person as charged, spittoon; but smoking is universal. must acquit. jury Cigars are rarely seen, and common Always oa land, Seventh Tbe proof must show the pipes never. Europeans aBd Ameri y THE of the b, GEO. A. LOWE kill-inj- for PETER SOHUTTLER'S Turks llctler than IIUOKKTI) Bos-phor- us Jay llakc ul Wagon Woods, MATERIAL, awm. di defendant is guilty ef the particular crime charged. Eighth. Tbe defendant is notrespon tible for tbe acts of other persons done without his censent. Ninth Defendant is not to be affected by the declarations of others made in his absence, unless the jury believe there was an agreement or confedera tion and that the declaration were made to further the same. Tenth Lee cannot be convicted if the jury finds that he did not kill one or mere emigrants, or did not abet tneir Killing, unless they believe he committed acts to cans uso cigarettes, and these are For made up as occasion demands. small box this purpose they carry a containing small strips of paper, made to of wood for this use, and hoe-croll one or which with bacco, they up as wanted, insert in more cigarettes an amber tube, and all is done save lighting. Easy as this seems, it re quires skill of manipulation. I hey are very delicate; not offensive to ladies, who permit them in their re make him accessory. ception rooms as a matter of course. Eleventh To convict it must be shown The Turk, if at home, smokes his that Lee by acts or words, at or before which is a wooden tube the killing, consented te or advised the chibouque, kilhnir. Twelf.h It was not unlawful for de fendants to go to the Meadows while the emigrants were camped there; and fur tber, if they went there to persuade the Indians to desist or te bury tbe dead and for no other object, such going was oot only innocent, but laudable and humane. Thirteenth If the persons f influence caused the men to go to Mountain Meadows, ostensibly for a good purpose, and not for a bad purpose, the act of going there and being present and not taking any part nor aiding or abetting is net evidence against defendants or any other intentien than to accomplish snoh oaten sible purpose, unless they had notice of the real object. In tbe absence cf such proof of notice, the law pretumes no guilty knowledge or intention. The attorneys for the people and also tbe defense will now address you, as is their right, aiding you to reach a correc conclusion in the cae. Now, gentlemen tbe duties whieu devolve upon you are very responsible, but you should act tbe part of independent jurors, disregarding any and all outside mfluence.Iooking to the evidence adduced, the law as given, by the court and jour twa. otbl as rone TOO offices: ut SaltLake City & Coriime, UTAH, M. JDy UAMMONI Ageat for the above ia six feet long, with awber tip at one OGDEN and LOGAN end and an earthen bowl at the other, (1204-.&resting in a polished brass saucer up on the floor. If he is at a restaurant he sin ekes his narghili, the apparatus for which there abounds. This ma chine is composed of a flexible tube. one inch in diameter and two yards long, attached with brass moantinss nU!UX,OXEIDA Co, IDAHO. to a large glass urn er bottle, partly EDW. NXXSON & Co, filled with water, and so constructed Ktr 0 U H. K. E, Btpot. that the smoke is all forced through YEH1CLES the water to be cooled and purified BUGFTKS, WAGONS AND OTHIH llaullac ui Trotting Trui, Horn, In actual consumption of tobacco, the ad aU oibr Uvarj Aecoawiltioi foir Ui Americans, in smoking alone (to say alios pobli. nothicg of chewing) far exceed this people, and also every other I have nU AMrMa. fTuto.1 A Co, Port ' in LIVERY FEED STABLES! tf seen. Uad, M., After a diligent search of ancient and scriptural history, we find that it was a woman who used the first OBSTACLES 46-1- 1 TO MARRIAGE. locxa nkn fro happt mxicr rox and Abates ia tfc effect of isrror life. Mrljr feUaboed RcatoKd. lapattuawl t Mtrriac r ibcTad. Sw nvrtao4f tu4 r bhxUm. Vvot aa4 CircaUn Um Viartai h) trtmt. oath. Adam complained that it was in mI4 vlepw. A4trva, AiOWAKU wrong to eat the forbidden fruit. fr, ASSOCIATION, tfe. 41S fUrta Miaia St, FaltaU Eve replied. "I don't care pbla, F- a- laatitaKkwaaviaff a aia Mpwtatln, for bOBormtl ceatlact an4 irrfwri naal at too and s3I-tUrge raoututu;, A.to" a |