The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1849-08-07

led 10 produce conviction, than no can
fabricate a connected chain Of circum-
stances, each one consistent with another,
and all forming together somplete salts
factory proof. The more especially is
this species Of evidence to be depended
upon when the circumstances which
rorm The links Of the chain come from
different sources, each one insufficient and
perhaps apparently trivial in itself, and
yet forming, when connected with others,
an important link in the chain Of proof. a'
I The general rule, and il is an impor-
tani one, is simply this: that the effect
Of the circumstances in proof should be
TO exclude any other supposlton than
that the fact 10 be proved true.
The Court will not detail the testimo-
| ny; it is unnecessary to do SO. The ju-
ry have taken minutes Of all the testimo-
ny. Moreover, the Court, by going into
relation OF the facts, might, unlntenr
tionally, convey to the jury The impress
sions (if any,) made upon their minds by
the proof. The Court will only ask The
jury, then, to examine all the circum.
slantial evidence in the case carefully
and cautiously, bearing in mind, all the
time, The rule just laid down by the
Court.
In the absence Of circumstances
which create suspicion, the presumption
is always in favor Of the veracity of a
witness.
In cases of conflicting evidence, the
Jury should first attempt 70 reconcile the
apparent incongruities and incvDsisten-
cies. If this can be done without vio-
lence, it is well; if not, the jury should
next endeavor 10 ascertain in what par
,iculars and to what extent the appa-
rent conflicting testimony is irreconcilea-
ble-so as TO preserve that which is con-
sislent and reject that which cannot be
reconciled with reason and probability,
and then ieduce the whole TO consistent
proof If upon examination, the jury
find it impossible to reconcile the con-
flicting testimony, il is their duty to de-
termine whether these are not simply mis-
conceptions on ihe part Of the witness,
rather than willful and corrupt misrepro-
rentatioD. Inconsistencies and incon-
gruities, as to collateral points, or minor
points, are TO be expected. In viewing
a transaction, or in hearing a relation, the
mind is apt TO be strongly affected by
certain strong points in what is seen or
heard, and these should he strictly re-
membered, whilst thousand minor cir
cumstances,not striking the mind with the
same force,a ARE naturally recalledwith diff
Guilty and partially, and perhaps entirely.
forgotten. 1t is laid down in the books,
that when there appears TO be conf citing
testimony, in order to decide on which
side lies the mistake, the jury should
take into consideration and compare the
natural talent of the witnesses whose
testimony apparently conflicts, their
strength ofmemory, the means and OPP
portunties which they have. had for OBJ
serving the transaction concerning which
they testify, and their reasons and no.
tons for attending.
When, however. the jury have failed
10 reconcile the testimony Of conflicting
Witnesses, they must then decide, (f
possible,) however difficult and painful
the task may Se, to which ofthe witness
es credit is due. To aid them in this
decision, the jury will of course look at.
the positive evidence .(f there be any
testing the character of the witnesses for
truth, (there has been some evidence on,
this roin, with regard to some of the
witnesses for the defendant, whether
the evidence against these Witnesses be
sufficiently strong to induce the jury 10
discredit these witnesses,t is for the jury
10 determine. Again, where testimony
conflicts, and is equally balanced in other
respects, the Jury will take into consider
alton all of the circumstances which
we're likely TO influence the witnesses in
favor of the one party or against the 9th
cr. For example, the ties Of ,elatlon-
ship, and even Of friendship, or an ex-
peciation of future gain, may reasonably
lead the jury to doubt the testimony of a
witness where it conflicts with That Of
others unconnected witlethe parties and
having nothing 10 gain from the result
Indeed, the authorities go further, and
say that where testimony is nicely bal
ancedj juries may regard considerations Of
far weaker description, such as the "bias
and prejudice which may arise in favor
of a party from connexion in the way of
trade, profession. or membership of any
description;" that is to say, where the
credit Of conflicting witnesses is in other
respects equally balanced. And these
considerations are entitled TO the more
weigh, where suspicion is aroused
by the manner and demeanor Of the wit
ness in delivering his testimony. r no
I There is an influence arising from
certain legal interests, as the jury well
know, in consequence of which wit
ness is absolutely excluded from testify
ing, as for instance, pecuniary inter-
est in the event of the cause. But the
influence referred to in the preceding re-,