The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1872-06-22


Syester refused to accept this PROPOSE
ton, but offered to submit the case TO
tho jury with instructions from the
Court, in the usual way This Mr..
Maulsby declined.
A mere peponderance Of evidence is
not sufficient for conviction there
must not be reasonable doubt left in
your minds, as you will see from what |
read from the 3D. vol. Of Greonleaf On
Evidence. The testimony Of the State
IS inconsistent. They show by Rinchart
that little after two o clock Davis is AZ
| Shew shop talking about making paste
with coal oil now they also prove by
| Mrs Lynn that her husband went 10 the
mill at two clock, aud shortly after that
| the mill is shut up, and they wish you 10
believe that this is the time Davis killed
him yet, at this very time they locate
Davis at Shows shop. Then the coun-
sci for the State don agree. Mr.. Smith
says that Lynn went down into the bin,
and Davis killed him as he was coming
out but Mr.. Norment and his learned
doctors, who not only know what can be
| but also what cant be, insist on it tina.
Lynn was lying on the floor looking into
the bin when he was struck. Now take
the crowbar. The State claims that the
fatal blow was strr,k with il; now where
is the blood on it? Did the assassin
wash it of If he did SO, where did he
get the watcr2 Has il not been proved
that the water flowing through the mill
was all closed up? and is there any proof
Of bucket of water being in tho mill p
| No, there is none and the Safe can
| show no possible connection that crowbar
| had with the infection of the wound, for
| it does not entirely fit the wound, and the
witnesses shos this by the description of it
| and the manner they say It was inflicted
Now again, Lynn suddenly left the mill
in the afternoon, and went to the house
to change his coat, and it was only then
he put the money in his pocket now if,
as the State claims, Davis made up his
mind to this murder in the morning on
his way to Linwood, how was he to know
| that Lynn was going to get sick in the
afternoon aud go to the house to change
I his clothes and get his money ? How
| was he to know this when the State says
he made up his mind to murder? What
motive could he have thcn2 It could
not have been the $500, for according to
| Davis knowledge that money was at
| Lynn house, AMI he could not know
that Lynn wis going to change his clothes
and thereby get the money on his per
son, We have, therefore, done away
with the theory of the State that money
was the motive of the murder. Then,
too, in regard to l.ynn's going to examine
the bin because Davis told him there was
| n leak in it. Is it not remarkable that
he would g and put on his best clothes,
taking of working sui, to do the very
dirtiest work about the mill ? Ism I this
rs remarkable as the visit Of Mrs. Lynn
to the jail Of her husbands murderer
Has there been sufficient accounting for
Lynn's pocket book Has there ever
been anyone who has seen il ? May not
Lynn have taken it tn the mill aud
placed it somewhere in the mill, where it
remains to this day? Has the mill ever
been searched for it2 No, it has not,
aud ask you not 10 convict a man be-
cause a pocket book cant be found,
which has never been looked for.
suMMISG UP FOR TUE STATE.
Attorney General Sycster made the
concluding argument for the State. lie
said:
Gentlemen of nc JHy In tho argu.
ment just made there has been such an
amount Of charges made against the ut.
torneys for the State that it Is us, less for
me to attempt to answer all of them.
| Some of them, however, cannot be pas
sed by in silence. The conduct of this
case has been most remarkable have
never before known Of Il case where, at
ter the prisoner had elected to be tried
by jury, and when that jury had heard
all the testimony, his counsel proposed TO
give up the jury and 60 to the Court for
their decision. Did he presume on our
ignorance Did he seek to eutrap us
through our ignorance of the law? Had
we consented 10 his proposition the yer.
dict 80 rendered would not have been
worth the paper on which it was written,
aud on writ of error the prisoner would
have been turned loose upon the commu-
nifty TO commit other crimes as horrible
as this, although he may now he rocking
with the blood of Lynn This is case
Of circumstaniial evidence, and we are
acting every day upon clrcumstantial ev.
idcnce. The farmer goes to his field in
the morning and finds his cattle gone
does he ut once give up and say there is
no u,c in going after them; | can do
nothing; nobody saw any one steal them2
Me- but he hastens after them; he
tracks them he finds man driving them
away, and he arrests him, and the man
is convicted. This is also case of cir.
cumstautial evidence. Do you not be
lieye that this was high handed, brutal,
mOney-making murder2 DO you first
ask that some witness must be here who
saw the blow struck which sent the death
drill through this healthy, stalwart,
man? No, you do not. You may talk
Of tn" honor due to man who stands up
and fights bravely in the front q battle,
bet greater honor is due to the men, who,
placed as you are, unfinehingly do their
duty? You know your duty, and | know
that no ridiculous sentiment, nor foolish
ideas as to lack Of positire proof, will pre-
vent your doing it fully Mr. Syester
here read from different authorities on
circumstantial evidence | have read
of a lawyer who raised doubt in the
case of man shot through the head,
with his brains ooziug out, whether or
not the death was caused by the wound
or by misapplication of the dressing. -
There is nothing that clnnOt be rendered
doubtful by sharp attorney, especially
IL has been prdcticiiag forty years -
But the doubt which the law means is
reasonable, rational doubt, strong enough
to exclude belief; not a mere technical
doubt. a juror is not at liberty, says
one Of the books, to doubt as juror
while he believes as man. That there
has been a murder is too plain for doubt;
it is impossible there could have been an
accident. No sirs; Lynn was brutally
murdered, and murdered for money =
The assassin weighed his life blood in the