OCR Text |
Show THE liURTON TRIAL. TUe District Attorney Cluars tbe Argument. The Cnarge of the Judg". Waiting For tlio Verdict. At the oprning of the couit on Wednesdjy morning, there was again quite a large attendance of ladies, they being seated, as on Tuesday, within the bar enclosure, while tbe seats in the rear were well filled with men. Judge VbdZUs then resumed bis argument : I should feel glad had I finished my argument hut night, and I protuaie you would be glad vrith me. I desire to try and make only a few more pjints. Laat night we had entered in the camp, but up to that time bad not arrived at tbe most im portant points, as io me numoer or men in the camp, I ahall say but little more, and I shall go upon tbe supposition that there were fifty or 100 ' men present; either number will do me. AM, nearly Agree that Burton and party came in tbe west lane. I i shall s?y little of the discrepancies in tbe testimony, txcept with regard to tbe position of Burion and Morris. One of tbe ear-marks of perjury is where witnesses te3tify precisely the same relative to a transaction, and I say to you that the similarity of tbe testimony cn the part of the witnesses for the defense gives tbe ear-marks of training. My triend Tilford struck the keynote key-note of the situation when he eaid the Morrisites came out of their cellars cel-lars a terror-stricken people. And why? Becauae for three long days they bad endeavored to deleud their tiomes, but woro compelled to bur-render, bur-render, owing u a failing of ammuui nition, and came out beforo an enemy armed with loaded guns. Tbere they stand with their families, when Burton rides into the camp. Morris ib called for and steps out. Did he step like a man goin to make a rush to the arms? 1 o;b you in the name of common sense, did he step out like a man with such a determination? Tbe men called for in the wni were named, and every one else who bore arms was to ba arrested, and owing to tneir snuaciou ai mat monism i say, they believed tbere was to be a general gen-eral massacre. Privilege was asked to speak. Was it to urge them to further resistance? No! A more fallacious theory was never advanced. But in stepping out, I tell you Morris stepped out to die like a man. What good would the arms do him, when testimony shows they were without ammunition. Why did he not say "seize your arms and make a desperate rush?" But he eaid "what I have taught you is eternal truth!" A great time to preach when about to make a desperate rush for arms, was it not? My theory is that Joseph Morris expected there wouid be a slaughter and he stepped out to be the tirst victim for tho sake ol the principles he taught. But by tbe testimony it is Bhown that Morris did not rush, but stood and looked in Burton's face while he was shot three times, Doei this look like a man making a desperate rush for arme? If the evidence in this case bad Bhown that Joseph Morris tvaa armed, when bis body wai found, I would not have been bo much surprised at the theory of the defense. Now, gentlemen, I ask you which is the most reasonable theory, that he expected to die or intended to regain the arms? Would he, had he intended to rush for thn arms, have stood thero while he was Bhot? and would he have allowed the men and women and children to mix together? Had it been shown that Morris separated sepa-rated them, there atiil might have heen 6ome ground for this strange theory of tbe defense. You must remember, too, that tbe position of Joaepb Morris was only a ehort d is tance from the arms. I will admit, for tbe sake of argument, that there were but two or three men guarding the arms; but it is a patent tact that a man at the age of Morris could have run and got to the arms, from where he ia said to havo stood, before any horse could have arrived there. It may be that these men were terribly frightened, but bad I been there, under these circumstances, I would never bavo come upon this Bland and admitted that I was frightened. I say thai a man who would be frightened fright-ened at that tima is not tit to be ranked in a force to attack an army of bed-bugs. I say that Sherifl Brown could have gone there and at that moment, taken Jos. Morris, bound him hand and foot, carried and thrown bim into the Weber river and drowned bim. He did not say he was frightened, but he expected they would havo a boll of a time. These men were frightened when fifty to 100 men stood there with loaded arms awaiting tho rushing on of this terrible niuety-ooe. Onl it was a learlul time. Another proposition that shows to me these mon expected to die ia the fact that at the lime Morris fell they prostrated themselves acroas his body, and mourned aud bewailed their losj. Is this the way men determined to regain their arms would have acted? H-iil hhiMi hpfn the determination it would have nerved them on to further action, and Iho laat man would havo lallcu before ho surrendered. It Bcems to me that tho argument that these men never iutended resistance resist-ance stands like the rock of adamant. When Morris fell tbe woman whose murder we are here to try appeared upon the scene. Yee; she had been seen before, in the bowery, taking care of the child of one ot the women then killed by iho cannon ball. She came to the parado ground with tho baby in her arms, and doubtless heariug the words of her prophet, aud uudiT the provocation, the warm bleed rushing through her veins the while, stepped out and calUd Burton a bloodthirsty wretch, and he turned and shot her. Perhaps she should not have spoken as sbediJ, but I am not here to criticize her action at this late day. Bowman tells you the story; and I aik jou, gcutiemen, if you are not convinced ot the truth of that poor old mau? I only ak you to recall bim as he eat here in tbe stand. Had he come here with revengeful feelings or shown excitement the ..inclusions of the defenie might have been juf lined; bui I only wish you to krep in your mind Ihe picture ot uat old man who, even as he elt the stand was willing to forget .,d to forgive, and then sk yuir-dvea yuir-dvea if he spoke falsely. I h3d inteudtd to go over the testimony testi-mony of our witnesses, but I hardly feel juMified in taking up so much ol vour time, and I ehli only rcler to wmeot the strictures made cn our witnesses. As regard the criticism on Brwman, I think the amnions must have escaped the hps of counsel in Iho heat ot argument. Ttie defense de-fense havo tried to locate the Danih-inau Danih-inau a- d Bownmu in the north of the fort, while we place him in theeouth; il he was in the north, why did not Dr. Clinton, who Powiio says cam-up cam-up to bim, etep up mul testify as In tbe position occupied ty tbein. Ii-was Ii-was here during tins t.-i.tl. 1j it u. ( more prohul-'e from Ti-..-.'na assigned tl a: the Danishma:, luaiead ol running run-ning north where tbere was danger, ran in tbe direction laid out by ibt prosecution? Mrs. Ju-1, t:,e oupr sine counsel says, testified that Su ddard rode a black horse. Mrs. Ju3l's testimony testi-mony is ,not that he rode a black horse, but a dark horse. The other criticism is that she says B.irtou eeiird her by the arms und took her away. I believe her Btatemeut ) tbis case because Bowman says Burion was on foot when he spoke to bim, aud I tell you I would rather take toe, testimony of that man when be is certain cer-tain than that of all tbe other witnesses wit-nesses put together. Camomile hbi been attacked with a great deal of vehemence He did not impress me as testifying falsely. I do not know the man only as I have Been him in tbis court. At one time I thought be was to be im peached; the louudatiou was laid, and yet not one word of testimony wae brought in tb:s case to impeach bis character. Camomile has lived here iur twenty uvu yuars, ruiutu t ioluuj, and I tell you tDat after scouring the whole country tbey could not bring one man in here to impeach the character char-acter of Dan Camomile. He does not exist, aod counsel has no right to call Camomile a liar and a perjurer. It is a Ireak of counsel; tbis sophistry will not do; that ia & trick of the trade, aud the law knowi it. But I take it that this criticism of Camomile does not effect the material points io the case. My friend Tilford has no patience with Hewitt; he is a fanatic, but it I happens that Hewitt is corroborated in the important points to which be swears. And do these criticisms use up the witnesses for the prosecution? I do not think so. Now let us look at the testimony of the defense, bearing in mind their theory in this matter. It is said that Morris was a medium siz ?d man, but in tbe crosB examinations I have found bim to be the largest mau I ever heard of, for he has covered the whole apace between tbe Morriaite camp and the schoolhouse, and the witufeeca of the defense have laid him all over the camp. In the testimony of Burton he Leila us that he did not see any women, and that if there were any they were hid from his vision; yet the theory of the defense is that tbe woman Bowman was right behind Morris, and Golding swears that the ball went through Morris' coat shoulder and into the neck of the woman, and yet Burton, wbo was by his side, could not see her. He must bavo seen her bad she been there lie could not have helped it. He did not see her, but Goiding did. As to the position at the time of the shooting, shoot-ing, Burion testifies that Morris vtas southwest of him, having stepped out about twelve paces. Tbe men, Burton says, pressed forwards towards me and my horse, and I cried, two or three times, "Halt," and "Stop the prisoners," prison-ers," and then drew my pistol and fired. I say that if all this had taken place, as he Bays, Morris would have got past, or he would have been shot in tbe back ot bis bead, as Green has testified. Burton wheeled his borse to the right, still facing Morris, and shot at him; yet Golding testifies that Morris was shot in the mouth. If these slatements are true, then Morris Mor-ris must have had his mouth in the side of his head. Golding says tbe people peo-ple were formed in a sort ot a half moon around the scboolhouse; that tbe horsemen all stood together; that there were five shots fired, Burton and Stoddard both firing, and that the first shot struck the woman, after passing through Morris' coat. I can account tor this story that pistol must have had a crooked barrel, or it never could have been as Goiding Goid-ing Bays. Robert is mistaken. But there are mora reasons than these. Burton Bays he wheeled his horse, and Morris was trying to get paat him, while Golding says the woman wsb right behind Morris. To shoot that woman as Golding a aye she was shot, Burton must have twisted his arm around his horse's neck and Bhot side wise, and this would take a longer arm than General Burton has yet shown. That could not have been clone, and you know it. In Brown's cross-examination be eays Murris Btood out in front where be could see him, with persons close behind, but be did not see any women, aud t think he could have seen any had there heen any women with Morris at the time, and bo could Burton. Hans Hauson came on the stand the day alter be first testified to Morris going southwest, and contradicts that statement. Morris be asserts was a medium eiz'd man, and the woman was behind him, and be thought she could have been seen down to her neck, and I say the man wbo pointei the pistol should havo been more careful and could have Been her. The following morning, Hauson came into the court and testified that Morris moved northwest from Burton. According to his theory, to have shot Morris in the mouth he mii3t have oorne directly towaids Burton when shot. He says Morris fell backwards to the weat, and further on says Morris was facing the east when shot. W. G. Child says be did not aco any woman behind Morris and that Morris fell immediately after the woman was killed. This witness, I think, eaid Morris was running and leaning forward, yet he fell on hia back, and if shot iu that position the ball would hve entered the head and ..... tlQ ,ni,ll. t-Iod ha hnon run ning the momentum of tbe body M would have canted him to fall for- ' ward, and the proof that he foil back-1' ward is proof positive t-jat he was 1 staLdiug still when shot by Barton, ns j 1 was the woman aleo. I' Green says Morris blepped out ofi1 the crowd, moved to the noith acd then turned southwest, right away j 1 from Burton, yet be was phot in the mouth end fell upon bii back, his ! 1 bend to the east. j These are some of the discrepancies 1 I have noticed in the defense, and it seems to me that 1 have shown by ,' (acts, here and there, that Morris was , standing Btill when shot. Tticy claim 1 tint it was necessary to take life aud , while doing so the woman w.ns unin teuiiomliy killed. It this k'liing ?- uece tf.iAry and the woman was kila-d ; hy ftiXuU-ni, I eay to you frankly that yi..j s::' u:d acquit the dolondant; but . if the killing ol Morris was not neces j rary then you must find a verdict of, guilty. I tell you that there was not a time . during the whole of the tight liia' ; Burton and bis nin cov.U not have gena in'o that camp and takeu aw.vy t-vi-ry man, woniau ! and child, and even Hie lo:s iu their cabins under their arms and niarciud away with them. 1 he con rso pur-' sued in this cass is jtit that w.ncrT would have been pursued by a per-nn! who wont there f.-r a luss. Had hcj gone there to prevent bloodshed hi- course wou'.d hve been to proceed there before dayiiglil and taken them all before they were a lowed time to gct Ihtir Rn-nuiuitL-u re:idy ixl m ke preparation lor a tuht. Whm these men bd eurrt-nJend at.d their arms were ?tcktd a:J f.liv ot Bur ton's men there to guard mem, H.no w.isro necefc-iiy Ur s:ickI!:ic tun r Moras or the woman. A? to whttner it was a mistake or not, I will add nothing to what I have already said. I havo un iertiikn to try the cade J fairly, at, d nnt to pUv the roU (.( a j oereecLitor. I hae no, intcitdto fiiy harm cf- acy man. I ak ycu to uke ti is evidtxee to yc.ir ri:m ad if it appears to yon that tbe law ha been violated you must decide accord ac-cord ngly. This is not only a lawol this nation, but a'sj a Lit ot God. I do not anneal to your prejudices, and I uow leve this case in your bands a-king ycu it tbis law has been vio I lated to tlud a verdict of guilty, if not bv all means I say acquit the defendant. defend-ant. Jui'ge VanZ.le here c.tndudcd his argument, and the following charge to the jury whs retd hy Judge Scbatfltr; Gentlemen of (he Jury: You have faithfully and patienth listened to ine evidence aud the arguments argu-ments ol counsel in Ibis imuortant case, and it now devolves upon me to direct your attention to such principles prin-ciples of law as are deemed applicable applic-able to the case, with a view to assist you in arriving at a just verJict. The indictment under which the de fendant is being tried charges the de fendant with killing Mrs. Bowman, in n manner and under circumstances and with motives, which, if true, make the killing murder in the first degree. Under this indictment, yiu can fiod tbe defendant guilty of murder mur-der io tbe first degree, if you believe from tbe evidence that all tbe material facts necessary to constitute murder in tbe first degree have been proven beyond a resonable doubt, or, in case you do not find the defendant guilty of murder in ihe first degree, you can, under this indictment, find the defendant guilty of murder in the eecoud degree, if you believe, from the evidence, that all tba material facts neceeaary to constitute murder iu the Becond degree have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; or in case you do not find tbe defendant guilty of murder in either the first or second degree, you can, under this indictment, in-dictment, find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, if, from the evidence, you believe the facts necessary to con vtitute manslaughter have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If vou find the defendant guilty ol murder, you must speciiy in your verdict whether it is murder in the first or in the second degree; und if you find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, you must bo state in your verdict. The territorial act of 1S52, which was in force at the time ot tho alleged killing, lor which tbedefendant is beiug tried, provides: that "whoever kills any human being j with malica aforethought, either ex-j pressed or implied, is guilty of mur- " M ;., 1 C.i killing of a human being without malice; malice aforethought is therefore there-fore the chief characteristic, tbe grand criterion by which murder is distinguished from any other species ol homicide, and it is therefore necessary neces-sary to inquire concerning the causes in which malice had bean held to exist. It should, however, b3 ob-servi ob-servi d that when the law makes use of tbe term malice aforethought as descriptive of the crime of murder, it is not to be understood merely in tbe tense of a principle of malevolenco to particulars; but as meaning that the homicide was attended with such circumstances cir-cumstances as are the ordinary symptoms symp-toms ol a wicked, depraved and malignant ma-lignant spirit a heart regardless of social duty and deliberately bent on mischief; and in genera!, any formed design to commit a crime may be calk d malice; and, therefore, not only such killing ss proceeds Irom premeditated hatred and revenge againet the person killed, but, also, in many cases, such killing as is accompanied accom-panied with circumstances that show the heart to be perversely wicked is adjudgtd to be malice alore thought, and consequently murder. mur-der. Under the sumo territorial act referred to, " When the murder mur-der is perpetrated by poison, lying iu wait, or any other kind of wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing, or when tbe murder is com milled in the perpetration of, or attempt at-tempt to perpetrate any areon, rape, robbery, burglary or mayhem, it is murder in tbe first degree." The unlawful un-lawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, other than that which constitutes murder in the first degree, as above stated, ia murder in the second degree. You will observe, thereforo, that rnauslaughter is principally prin-cipally distinguished from murder, in this that although tbe act which occasions oc-casions the death is unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice aforethought, either expressed or implied, which is of tbe essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter. When the act is deliberately done with a deadly weapon, aud is likely to be attended with dangerous consequonces, no con-'siderable con-'siderable provocation appearing, the I motive requisite to constitute murder may be inferred, for the law infers 'that tho natural or probable effect of jan act deliberately done, is intended by the actor. Wnen the act is deliberately delib-erately done and is unlawful, and is of a character ordinarily productive of 'great bodily harm, it will subject the doar to the chargo of murder, whenever when-ever death comes from it; but, if the act is not dangerous in itself, yet is unlawful, and unexpectedly death comes as a consequence, the oflsnao is not murder, hut may be manslaughter man-slaughter so if the act is one of a nature to be lawful if properly performed and it is performed im-propcily, im-propcily, and death comes from it ! unexpectedly, it is not murder, I but it may be manslaughter. The warrant put in ovidencs, hearing hear-ing date and tested June 11th, 1SG2, jurpoi'ting to have been issued by this i-ourt. and requiring the arrest of los. Morris. John Banks and others, lor the ofleuse of wilfully, forcibly ind without lawful authority imprisoning impris-oning one Wm. Jones, required their irrest on a criminal charge, which was then a felony. Slid warrant was i valid proems and the service thereof was a duty imposed upon the oilicer :o whom it was directed and delivered. If yru find from tho evidcr.ee that he defendant was at, sni from the lime ol the issuing ol sa:d warrant, a jfpiity marshal ot ibid territory, and that s -i:d worrint was delivered io him to be served, and that in attempting to nrrcst paid Joseph Morris, John Buiks and others therein named to In; nrrtpj, or either of them, he was f. rc;bly rented to prevent tuch arrest, and that to prevent tbe escape otaaid Morris, by means of such rebalance, rebal-ance, tbe eaid Morris was kille', such killing was justihable. Tue defendant, defend-ant, as deputy mar?hal, if riati-d in the (i"cutx.n of a 1 iw!ul writ, would hp authored to arrest tin p?r?cns so refilling h'iru withrut prongs, and iu i such case ft'on d t ave toe siaie pew. r' qb though a w.-irriht bad hern issued hy a court of v mpclt nt y-i-i iirrtion rt quirine sue a arr tt. A . cud:;1 ply. it y .a ti::it from V.-c le-iim u.y : h-t t:,c d-jirndar.t wai a ifevn'V te.rr::..:: ! mar?:::l on the 3 ) h t f J "ie, ISo. and that he then h ui in his hand-ihos-iid warrant 'or eerv.c, and trial the prfOD9 w r-.i-m hn t .k it to h;r. 'cu-t-Jy y pri-r.Ls:. hvj im media: ly tx-i :tp'wj:i eiga-J ia r." si-tm; him , iu Lis a'tfOit.! to cxi cite s::d . wri ti e tUfi .i.;i.t vena tot only ' ti-.-.h. r-7. -J to (tike , -urn p?rs- inln cu t -'', lut it wa !rs dtry to do so. ' It n:i rilioir Fum .- Uil y r fist liuv w.m svt k ti c'ojtruet a: d hu-dtr Lira from the law ;ul ex'"cu;;cu ot his duty, he is jutttlicd, even ahouU the lives of his as3aiUuts, their aid.ra and abettors, be mce.aniy lak- :i in overcoming such n science. Iu every cts;i ttie otik-er thuuid proceed witn due cau-'-ion, bn it is not nectary mat he luould rrirear, aud be may proceed to extremities upon a reasonable neceeeity in order :d exe ute bis duty. Woenever, by hia conduct, a party Gutit to be arretted on a lawful- war-raut, war-raut, puts in jeopardy the life of any attempting under its authority to ar-reet ar-reet him, he may be killed, and such ill iu would be excusable. If you nod irom the testimony, that Joseph Morns was killed by tbe defendant, or auder thia defendant's order, and that it the lime of tbe killing, the circumstances circum-stances were such as to excite the tears of a reasonable person that ;JoLeph Morris and others acting in concert with him, ware about to do real bodily barm and injury to the defendant and others acting under aia command, in bis or their endeavors endeav-ors to execute siid warrant, and if you further find irom tbe testimony that the defendant, in so causing the Jtiutb of Slid Joseph Morris, really acted under tbe influence of such reasonable fears and not in a spirit of levenge, tucb killing was justifiable. ine necessity oi talcing human me needs not be actual, arising from imminent im-minent danger, in order to eicuee tue slayer, tut he may act upon ap-pbHTiincea ap-pbHTiincea which give bim reasonable cause to believe that the danger ia actual ac-tual and imminent, although it may (urn out that he was mistaken. His guilt uiuHt depend upon tbe circumstances circum-stances as they appear to him as a , reasonable man. Homicide in resist nig an assault, not made with a felonious intent, is excusable where the danger created by the assault as-sault id to life or eerioua bodily barm ot a permanent character, and where it cannot be prevented by other means in the power of the slayer, so far as he is able to judge at the lime. In estimating the circumstances which will justity or excuse the taking of human hie, tbe slayer may properly consider, amnug other appearances ol danger, the previous character and reputation of his aKsaiiant lor violence and lawlessness, law-lessness, or otherwise; and hence, in this case, the defendant, at the time of the homicide, might, in connection connec-tion with other circumstances, take into consideration his knowledge, and information of the previous reputation reputa-tion of Joseph Morris and his followers, fol-lowers, and ol the influence which he exerted over them, as well as what he kueiv, or.waB told of their antecedent acts, and tbe consequent probabilities probabili-ties of a united effort, if any, oc their part, at tbe instance ef Morria, to resist the execution of said warrant and to inflict great bodily injury upon tbedefendant or any of the persons acting under his authority. If you find irom the testimony that Mrs. Bowman was unintentionally killed by the defendant, directly or indirectly, in-directly, ia the act ot killing Joseph Morris, and that if Morris had been killed by that act, it would have been ! justifiable homicide, you Bhould acquit, unless -you believe from the testimony that the killing of Mrs. Bowman Bhowed a wanton disregard of human lile on the part of the dclendaut. In criminal cases ycu should not ceuviet on a mere preponderance pre-ponderance of the testimony, a verdict ver-dict ot guilty should not be rendered unless tbe evidence is so convincing as lo exclude every reasonable doubt ol the defendant's guilt. Before you are warranted in convicting you mut be satisfied from the evidence, to a moral certainty, that the charge ia true; any reasonable doubt, whether the killing was justifiable or excuse-able excuse-able or not, will require tbe acquittal of tbe delendant. . AmoLg the acts done by the permission per-mission of the law for the advancement of public justice, are those of officers who, in the execution of their offices, either in a civil or a criminal case, kill a person who assaults and resists them. The resistance may justify an efficer in proceeding to the last extremity, bo that in ali cases, whether civil or criminal, where officers having authority to arrest and imprison, aud using tbe proper means for that purpose, are resisted in eo doing, they may repel force with force, and need not give back; and if the party making resistance is unavoidably un-avoidably killed in the struggle, this homicide is justifiable. Ministers of jutico, such aa marshals, sheriffs, constables and their deputies, while in the execution of their offices, are under the peculiar protection of the law a protection founded on wisdom and justice, for without it the public peace and tranquility cannot posaibly be maintained, or private property secured, nor would, ordinarily, ofl-inders be brought to jualice. For these reatjB, the killing of officers when so employed, is deemed murder with malice aforethought, afore-thought, as baing an outrage wilfully committed in defiance of justice. But it behooves officers to take care that they do not misconduct themselves in tho discharge of their duties on paiu of forteitiug the protection which the law a fiords to them. Thus, though in civil and crimiual cases, an officer may repel force by force, when hia authority to arrest or imprison is resisted, and will be justified in so doing if death should be the consequence; conse-quence; yet he ought not to come to extremities upon every Blight interruption, inter-ruption, nor without a reasonable necessity; ne-cessity; and if be should kill where no resistance is made, or reasonably feared, it would be murder; and if bo should kill a person alter the rebalance rebal-ance is over, and tbe apparent necessity neces-sity hs8 clearly ceased, and sufficient time nus eiapaeu ior me u;oou to coci, and there is no apparent attempt of a renewal of resistance, it would ne murder. In order to convict the defendant you must believe from the evidence, beyoud a reasonable doubt First, ihat Mrs. Bowuiau was killed; second, that her death wa3 caused by pistol shot wounds substantially as charged in the iudictment; third, that her death was unlawfully caused; fourth, that the defendant, either alone, or with another, or others, directly cauKd her death, or that be was prcsert and aided cr encouraged the killing, or th&t he advised, a: ted and abitud hii uuir.wlul act, which cauatd her d; alb, or that the defendant shot at Morris, or some one elr-c under cir cumstanccs w.iich would have mr.ijc b;rii g.nl'y o' an un ai'u'i homicc if tl) e cLnt i ;d kilhd the person oimed at, aijd that such shot killed Mrs. B;wm;n, although, not intended for her. "Y u are the so)3 juil-es of the cre,J..b:,.ty of t'.ie wui.er-s, of the , v-.-:!it ht the evidi-nre ar.d of the !fa;:tf." Wheu d.hVreut witnesses nink various h'a'.i men's iu re-j;.'.ri1 re-j;.'.ri1 ti at.y nitteiitl pjint, you j rh m!j. harnionije the;u eo as jto.vp i:ch cr"vjir to e:'.ch ai y.n ' :n it if Ci)'itl;d t . :i you can. Bat :t in your j i -gniM.t t-u,-h various -l iti siu'Tit cum: t r-o lia:morrzr-d, you riiu.t then rie'erminn which is t nlitli d to eiedit, and in drinc so, ! yoa s'OuiJ (tiki ) i.-j c-'ir.si Jtration ; t:.e w;me-Ks' ar v mice on the wit- nsa' t-U:.il, thfir niPAos of in!rrci'V 'l.'P, fiiir pnrept trothfolr e-a or 1 niht'i w-e ac 1 the pruS-ih r.Uu ol thtT ! 1 1 a it- in pi it a in ci :.:" c : : n ; '. h the ' on; r I .ts f.r.d circurii: tijCa ;u ;.:f. j "i;:e cV.Vr.: mt is prr ;':rr,f-J to be j inncc; nt imt;i the contrary i proved, " and in ciwe ol a rtav uab.e doubt i whether bis guilt is satisfctirih i shown, he is entitled to an acquittal j bat, tht-n, is a reasonable doub;' i and wr.at is meant by prod beyond a reanable dcubt? A reasonable d;ubi is such a frame ot mind as will cause you, as reasonable men, to feel, slier a carelul and conscienti ous consideration of all the facts and circumstances in proot, that you are not satisfied that the defendant ie guilty. Proof beyond a reasonable dcubt is such as will remove or exclude ex-clude ail such reasonable doubts, and euco as produce an abiding conviction convic-tion in your minds, tc a moral certainty, cer-tainty, that tbe facts necessary to be proven actually exist. A mere balance of proof is not eudicient. A balance of proof iB that which you think is aiott likely to be the facta i. e., it in the way your minds prepondera'.f upon a question of fact. That will not answer in a crimiual case. There I must not only be a balance of proof, but tbere must be such a measure or weight of proof that will remove all reasonable doubts and produce an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, cer-tainty, that nil the material facte necessary to a conviction actually exUt. Proof beyond a possibility of uout,t is not requirea, uecause mat is impossible. It is not necessary toshow that it it utterly impossible, that t' e defendant is innocent, nor that he is guilty beyond all possibility, but il is required of the prosecution to produce such evidence that when you have careful'y considered it, no rea sooable doubt remains in your minds as lo any material fact necessary to constitute the guilt of the defendant, otherwise you should aquit. Now, gentlemen, take the law and the evidence, aa tbey have been given to you in open court, carefully consider con-sider them, fearlessly discbarge the responsibilities that rest upon you. Let your verdict be in accordance with the law and the testimony received re-ceived by you, for thus only can the best interests of this community be promoted, and you yourselves stand justified before your fellow men and your God. Judge Sohaefler remained in the court room till after 8 o'clock last night, up to which time the jury had failed lo agree on a verdict, and be left. If an agreement is arrived at, it will not now become known until tbis morning at the opening of the court. |