Show mw m mm of alie supreme court IN the opinion by judge miner concurred in by all the judas judgment in the babcock case haa baen et aside and the case remanded hy the supreme court of the territory this will not be any to our who followed the testimony in the case last spring as published in me the wonder of al then was how a jury could find george W hancock gaiety on the evidence evi dance then the facts of the case are areah in the memory of our readers how mr hancock with two others was indicted for the murder of henry jones on april said indictment being found in march 1890 the defendant was found guilty in the district court of this city of murder in the second degree and a motion for a new trial was denied by judge blackburn an appeal was than taken to the supreme court and wednesday an opinion was rendered by judge miner judges zane and ander eon concurring the defense assigned twelve ei grounds for a reversal of the judgment of conviction it ia claimed that the court erred in allowing henry gardner to testify that jones had been castrated cast rated in refusing all the requests of the defendants fend ants in charging the jury as to the effect of good character in charging the jury upon the fact as to the belief to be attached to witnesses who testified to the exact language thirty two years after the transaction in charging the jury that time does not run in favor of murder in charging the jury as to justification As to the first error assigned judge miner said in the course of trial it appears by the testimony ot henry gardner under objection from the defendants fend ants counsel that henry jones had been castrated cast rated some considerable time before the alleged homicide it nowhere appears that the defendant had any hand or complicity in this transaction or was in any manner chargeable there with or that that fact in any way tends to elucidate the question of gui lt or innocence of the defendant the presumption is that this testimony was admitted fur the purpose of showing malice on the part of the defendant and that was probably the ground upon which the learned judge admitted this testimony if this be BO the prosecution failed in any way to connect the defendant with the act of castration thia we think was error the only object for its admission if it was ad at all would be to show that the defendant committed the act or assisted in ita commission and that ha must have had malice against the deceased at that time and when ahe prosecution failed to connect the defendant with the act the testimony becomes incompetent its ad mission under the circumstances would naturally tend to awaken a prejudice an the minds of the jury against ibe defendant fen dant testimony of this transaction was foreign to ane issue and should not have been allowed the decision holds that the request of the defense for instruction as to character should have been granted and the instruction given was erroneous on this subject the opinion says it is in clear cases therefore where evidence of good character is of the most avail there may ba cases made out so clear that no good character can make them doubtful but there may be others in which evidence eiven against a without character would amount to a conviction in which a high character would produce a reasonable doubt or in which high character will actually outweigh evidence which otherwise might goo d character is an important factor with every man and never more so than when he is put on trial charged with an offense chih is rendered improbable in the least degree by a uniform course of life wholly inconsistent with any such crime there are cases where it becomes a mana sole dependence and yet may sufficient to outweigh evidence of the most positive character ane most clear and convincing cases are sometimes satisfactorily rebutted by it and a life cf unblemished integrity becomes a complete shield ot protection against the most skilful web of suspicion and falsehood which conspirators have been able to weave good character may not only raise a doubt of guilt which would not otherwise exist but it may bring conviction of innocence in every criminal trial it is a fad which the defendant is at liberty to put in evidence and being in the jury have a to give it such weight as they think it entitled to the court also instructed the jury as follows she length of time that had elapsed since the murder that was committed and the of the prosecution is not mojie consider ed at all it id not an ac to de termine the built or innocence of this diw r i vv j ii lime does not run against the murderer or iu hie favor no lapse of time washes out the stains that blood shed ky the murderer makes this charse was possibly given under a mistake of fact we think it had a tendency to mislead tho jury and that from it they might iufer that the opinion of the as to the 1 identity of the murderer the degree df the ol 01 bense and the guilt of the defendant this homicide homi cido was committed thirty two sago and when we consider consid tr that the witness ellen brown was only five years of age at thai time and that other witnesses had grown old and possibly forgetful with increasing ape va cannot conclude that the length of time which has elapsed sauce ahe homicide should not be a strong circumstance to enter into the consideration of the jury in testing the truthfulness ulness candor or bias of those left to relate alie circumstances of this alleged murder and as bearing upon the probabilities of the guilt or innocence of the accused hopt vs people U S for the reason elated tho verdict and judgment judg mant of the court below should be set aside and a new trial granted |