The Bloomfield times. [volume] (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1867-187?, 1871-01-17

ne committed that act may God parayze |
him on the spot he was standing.
On the subject, of motive and the evidence
introduced by the Commonwealth to prove
it; circumstances of John p. Boyer and |
his wife and the forged note we say to you
that motive is not evidence that crime !
was committed. But ifit is proved by other !
evidence that murder was committed then |
motive is evidence to point out the guilty !
perpetrator
The defendants counsel have given evil |
dcnce Of the affection of the prisoner for
the deceased members of the family. The |
evidence on this subject is full and uncon-
tradicted. That he was a kind and ancc-
tionate son to his parents; would relieve |
and assist his mother III her domestic du- |
ties that even after his marriage and after
he had left the parental roof, when he vsi- ,
ted his parents he would milk the cows for
his mother, carry water for her, and do
other acts of kindness; that he was kind
and allectiOnate to his fa her. and brother
and sisters considered him his fathers favo-
rite child.-The evidence rs to his feelings
for his little brother and sister is equally
strong that he evinced strong affection for
them.
We have briefly reviewed the evidence in
the case and we say to you that to justify
a conviction, the evidence must produce on
your minds more than strong suspicion
more than n strong probability of guilt.
1t must satisfy you beyond reasonable
doubt, and to moral certainty that the
prisoneris guilty of the crime with which
he is charged. You must further be salts
fed that the facts relied upon by the com
monwealth TO prove guilt are incompatible
with the innocence of the accused, and in
capable of explanation upon any other rea-
sonable hypothesis, consistent with the evil
dence, than that of his guilt, before you
would be justified in rendering verdict
Of guilty.
The evidence III this case is entirely cir
cumstantial. An opinion is sometimes
entertained that no one ought to be convic-
| ted Of murder ON circumstantial evidence,
but this is erroneous, for circumstantial ev-
idence may be quite as satisfactory and
convincing as positive proof. Witnesses may
be of doubtful character they may swear
positively to the killing, and they may be
/ periured ; or they may be honestly mistaken
! i'll the identity Of the person. But when
a chain Of facts is sworn TO by Il number of
witnesses of undoubted credibiity, poin-
ting with uner1'ng certainty to the guilt of
| accused and ineconcilable with any reason
| able hypothesis of innocence, consistent
with the evidence this may be even more
satisfactory than the evidence Of two or
! lnItG WlillCShtS NllO SWCdI pDSlllNGly 10 luC
| facts about which they may be mistaken
or who, from malice, had feelings of revenge
| toward the accused, misrepresent the truth.
But to justify II verdict of guilt the evil
! dence, whether positive or circumstantial
must show the existence of facts incOmpat-
! ble with the innocence of the accused and
| incapable Of any other explanation, consis-
tent with the evidence, upon any other rea-
sonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.
The law prcsumes every man innocent
until his guilt is proven. The accused is
not required 10 prove his innocence, that
| the law presumcs, and he is entitled to the
! benefit of that presumption until his guilt
! is proved by the Commonwealth and to
! Justify a conviction the guilt of the accused
must be proved to q moral certainty. 4
reasonable doubt, you will understand to
work IN acquttal, must be serious and sub
stantial, not imaginary not the mere posi-
/ bility of u doubt. But if, after careful
consideration and comparison of all the evil
dence, the minds OF the jurors are in that
condition that they cannot say they feel an
abiding conviction, to n moral certainty, of
the prisoners guilt, this state of mind will
justify the jury in acquitting the accused.
Before you would be justified on convicting
the defendant, the evidence must have pro-
Guccd on your minds an abiding conviction
toa moral certainty, of the prisoners guilt
| 4 moral certainty is "a certainty that con-
vinces and directs the understanding, and
satisfies the reason and judgement of those
. who are bound to act Conscentiously upon
it," Again, it is thus defined ga state
of impression produced by facts, in which
a reasonable mind feels Il sort of coercion
or necessity to act in accordance with it
the conclusion being one which cannot,
morally speaking be avoided, consistently
with adherence to the truth"
The tragedy you are now required to in
yestigatc, in winch an entire household,
consumed in their burning dwelling, if in
territorial and not accidental, is fearfully
horrid, and has been called "the Perry
county horror" 1t almost surpasscs Gre
dulity to believe that II heart possessed of
such demoniacal attributes ever pulsated
within human body. For this reason you
must be very careful and guarded not to
permit the enormity Of the crime, charged
upon the prisoner, to excite your prcjudices
or bias your Judgment against the accused;
consider the evidence cody, camly, deibcr-
ately, and the evidence alone. Lay aside
entirely every prejudice, and everything
you may have heard in reference to the
case before you entered the jury box. Dis
card entirely all pre-cOnceived impressions
/ if any Of you have entertained and give to
the prisoner the benefit of the legal pre-
sumption of innocence until guilt is clearly
proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
After thus considering the evidence,
sOlemnly, calmly, carefully and deliberately
your minds free from passion, prejudice,
bias, and from impression or opinion rs to
the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, if you
entertain reasonable doubt of his guilt,
the law requires you to acquit him; IT, ON
/ the contrary. YOU have no reasonable doubt