Show van patten Is THE JUDGES it was very concise CoB cise Ts the aeed smoot building unsafe yesterday afternoon at 4 the eloquent argument of assistant prosecuting attorney thurman was ed in the mrs van patten cabe and then the judge charged the abo jury aa follows gentleman of the jury i the defendant is accused by this in 1 ot the crime of murder in the first degree it is alleged that bome time in october 1893 ia county in this district she wilfully and feloniously and with a apeci fie intent to take life administered laudanum to one soren nielsen Ni eisen brorn the effects of which he died I 1 charge you that the time or data of the act if it waa committed is wholly immaterial n this caso and I 1 also charge you that in county ia within the jurisdiction of this court so that you sae there are two principal questions of fact for you to determine in thia case first did saren nielsen die from the effects of peidon second wae the poison from which he died wilfully and feloniously administered to him by the defendant with the specific intention of taking his life in order to find the defendant cuilty you must answer both of these questions in the affirmative and beyond a reason able doubt they are purely questions of fact you must look into the evidence boon the subject and determine first beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not soren nielsen died from the effects of poison V you find that he did then you will next inquire whether or not fais poison was wilfully and felonious ly administered to him by the defendant with the specific intention of tak ing his life all murder which is accomplished by means of poison is murder in the first degree in this caad different poisons are named in the two counte in the indictment if you find that nielsen died from the effects of laudanum or ou rass or both and that these poisons baye been wilfully and feloniously administered to him by the defendant with an intention to take bis life then the defendant is guilty although you are not certain which 0 the poisons killed him the case on the part of the prosecution ia attempted to be made out by deaca meaca of what is called circumstantial evidence now upon that question I 1 charge you that if you can reasonably reconcile all the circumstances proven with the innocence of the defendant it is your duty to do EO and to acquit her although you might believe upon the doctrine of chalcea or probabilities that it is more likely ebe is emilty than that she is not guilty it is your business to determine what facts and circum stances are proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and then determine from thene facts and circumstances BO dooyen whether they convince your own ands beyond a reasonable doubt that Niel feen came to his death from poison and that the potion was wilfully and feloniously administered by the defendant with an intention to take bia life the defendant is presumed to be ins of the charge and cannot be convicted unless her guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt you are the exclusive judges of tho facts in this case you are to determine the weight ol 01 the testimony the credibility 0 each witness who haa been before you you should consider the manner of the witness on the stand the reasonableness or unreasonable nepa of the statements made whether or not the witness is contradicted by other credible testimony whether the witness has any interest in the result of the action or has manifested any feeling or desire to obtain a specific verdict and from all the circumstances and facts before you determine what witness has sworn the truth and what witness has sworn falsely if any if any witness has sworn false in a material matter you are at liberty to disregard entirely the testimony of such witness unless his testimony be corroborated by the other testimony and the facts and circumstances of the case if upon the whole of the evidence you believe that the defendant or some other person poisoned soren sicken and killed him wilfully and feloniously and you entertain a reasonable doubt as to which of two persons did it anu must acquit the defendant fen dant but if bhe willfully wil lully assisted aided or encouraged another person to do the act then she ia equally guilty as if she had done it herself the jury at once retired and at they filed into the court room with verdict the defendant wa sent and cleres peery read the verdict as follows we the jury in the above entitled cause find the dependant de not guilty SATURDAY FORENOON the judge feared that the reed block was unsafe because of larg cracks in the partitions this mornin sr and held court in ins chambers in tha adjoining buil din norh it wag feared the large audienna audi enca in attendance at the van patten trial bad caused ih walla to spread and consequently maki Esthe regnar courtroom unsafe mr reed smoot trie proprietor was notified and he at once cent to salt ake for an espart to the the architect of the halt lake county and city building is expected awn air T H cluff city inspector 01 buildings will act in connection with him mr moot claims the main walla are entirely cafe and will stand forever he says the partitions parti tiona are of green lumber in in winter and the steam has caused a shrinkage CASES BEARD james maeon va A E linklater Link liter coet relaxed making jennie stewart vs laud siewart decree of divorce granted on the ground failure to aad drunkenness W P noble mercantile company vs mt Plea equitable coop co op motion to modify appointment of rec iyer heard in part and continued to april 3 wm lewis vs J R mooney et al proceedings edinga dismissed wm H patten ve thos T demurrer sustained and plaintiff given biye days to amend complaint J G mccord VB waller moore mo tion for judgment on pleadings plea dinga denied |