The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1870-03-08 00:00:00

AND AGRICULTURAL G.

which gives asouragentent to ths ether, mad to may
make the ad of the ooe the ad of both. It will be fOr
you to say whether you find in this particular ease the
evidence of support and etwoar•gement of one man
6gthiounikedtherekilatba.
one as well se the other. The next eass to which I
at of the other, which makes you
desire to make refPrielivirencleacigaleoce7nee mrnisd.twouotpealkinesonds. the
t
I, that of 13 imbeth Legg, who is charged With having
stolen • pieoe of meet. ite to her, the evidence is of a
, very simple °Lasater, and I have nothing to say about
II except as introductory to that of Mary You, who
ia charged with receiving the property alleged to have
been stolen. Of gourd it is a 00011W011 observation in
1 MOOG Of this kind, that the possession of stolen property
immediately after it has been stolen, le In itself come
evideoce of • guilty knowledge, bet that is necessarily
ruled by the particular character of the property which
has born stolen. If • person without means is found
immediately after a watch and chain Is stolen In
possession of it, and can give no account of how he
obtained it, the inference In nary strong that he canl.
hy It in Noma improper manner. But that of coarse
does not apply to the cad of a piece of most. Be
kind enondt,therefore,in considering the evidence which
will be laid before you, to enquire whether on find any-
thing that leads you to the °occlusion that a ease has
h••• outdo out, odium maw the person to answer the
pentad facie charge which has been laid against
her. There remains one other des to which
i viii call your particular attention. It is
that of George Drake who is charged with perjury.
Of course the *huge of perjury Is one that varies in
ite depth from the highest to the lowest degree. It Mu
been my lot on one occasion to tryaddiddltholl • charge of
perjury in endeavouring to ix upon an innocent man a
charge of having murdered an individual who had
come by his death by the negligent set of the policeman
himmlf. In that case the criminality could scarcely be
exceeded. It approached In its diameter the crime of
murder itself. Probably the present cad may be
taken as staoding very near the opposite point. It is
a teas in which the man is alleged to have slated falsely
that some one bearing the same name—l do not know
whether be was a relative—had not been in • public
house on • particular evening Of coarse it is not your
o
duty, any more than it is the duty of the jar, who
would have to try the man if both shui
abepgrthetictiesselar, toconsider the magnituded the crime but its existence. I
But I beg you to bear in mind inonnsidering the evidence '
that the e positioos are fou oded upon • statemen mac
mtits
an uneduested and ignorant person end relate tots
dooming at Particular hours ant upon d
day. Now, we know well that when persons of this
kind give evidence in courts of justice it is a continual
subject of remark that they are generally inaccurate In
their narrative as far as it relates to hours or even days.
In common eases of alibi their evidence la constantly
discredited and disbelieved from their inaccuracy as to
dates and times. You will, however. say whether this
appears to you to be the character of the untruth—lf
ilia csatereent which nought he.
the subject of thin charge, to which I wish to dined
your attention, and would sale you in consideratiou to
hear In mind the observations I have made. As far as
the calendar is concerned itself. I have had an °poor-
lanitiwnbirireseasaiiia." I° I
containedi
itf examining
turn It
ith idessanooritithj,:lah"7"dicat":"d:di,eari°reetne"%halthuhenre;sotapectedloslayriealvieas".labtahlattito]l.
be very happy bailor