The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1872-01-22
THE SWIFT MANsLAUGHTER
CASE.
Trial of Simon A. LOveitt for the killing
of Leonard r. SWEET I'm Portland Sept.
70, 1871.

l
the afternoon, was very brief. We give below
an abstract of it.
Gentlemen of the Jury-The prisoner is in.
dicted for manslaughter. This has been defined
by the counsel and 1 can only reiterate what
they have already well stated. Homicide is the
unlawful killing of a human being. There are
| iustifiable homicide, excusable homicide and
felonious homicide. There are two kinds of
felonious homicide-murder and manslaughter
In manslaughter there is no motive-no wicked
intent If there be an intent to kill even
though the intent was conceived but the instant
| before the fatal blow was struck the crime
would be murder. But if, on the other hand
the blow was struck in the heat of passion
without intent or design to cause death itwould
| be manslaughter
Now the Indictment charges that Leonard F.
| SWEET was killed by blow inflicted upon him
by Simon A. Loveitt, the prisoner at the bar,
| on the 10Th of September last, and as the in
| dictment does not charge that the blow was in
hicted with malice aforethought or with intent
| to kill, it makes the crime manslaughter.
| The government must satisfy you beyond a
| reasonable doubt that Leonard +. SWEET is dead
| that the blow was inflicted by the prisoner,
| and that the blow was the cause of his death
| 1t is admitted that Leonard f. SWEET is dead !;
| that he was killed at the time and place alleged
in the indictment and that the prisoner infiict-
| ed a blow upon him; but it is denied that that
| blow caused his death; and here is the issue
| between the government and the prisoner. The
| government say UnaC the dow ln1lcted by the
| prisoner caused Swett's death, but the prisoner
says, that admitting he inflicted a blow, it did
| not cause his death, and that the blow which
| did cause his death was inflicted by another
| person whom the defence calls a fisherman. /
| have to say to you, gentlemen, that the ques-
| ton for you to decide is not SO much whether
any one else caused the death of SWEET as it is
| whether or not the prisoner at the bar caused
| his death, and the whole case is narrowed down
| to this one single point.
| If nd haiti of fha
| which the prisoner admits he inflicted on SWEET,
| SWEET fell upon the curbstone or sidewalk, and
| in so falling received an injury which caused
his death, or if the combined effect of the blow
| and fall caused his death, then the prisoner
would be guilty of the crime charged.
In the preparation of your verdict, on the
facts given you in the evidence, one of your
main objects should be to arrange these facts in
| such an order and light as will give you the
| best view of them and thus make easier your
decision upon them.
You should begin by considering the credit
due to the witnesses, giving to each the credit
to which he is entitled and refusing to give any
credit to those, if any such there be, whom up
on careful examination of their evidence, you
find unworthy of belief The next step will be
to weigh carefully and correctly contradictory
testimony, keeping that which preponderates in
favor of truth and discarding the other. If
there is conflicting evidence admitting of recon-
Citation you must reconcile it accordingly and
in this way you will dismiss from your minds
all the facts which are immaterial and retain
the material ones. 1922 -
1t is a rule of law, very essential to be oh
served, especially when the case is to be de-
termined on circumstantial evidence, that all
the facts should be consistent with the theory
or hypothesis which is proposed, that the facts
should be of a conclusive nature and should to
moral certainty exclude any theory but the one
proposed to be proved and should be absolutely
inconsistent and incompatible with the inno-
cence of the prisoner 1t is not enough to say
that the testimony goes to show the guilt of the
prisoner in any case, but it must be inconsist-
ent with the reasonable supposition of his in
nOcence
The opinion of professional men are compe-
tent evidence in cases like this. The opinion of
the jury, in general, is to govern, and their
opinion is to be founded upon the proof and
facts stated to them. But there are questions
which are beyond the observation and expert
ence OF men in general, but which at the same
time and within the observation and experience
OF those whose pursuits and professions have
brought that class of facts frequently and habit
ually within their consideration. -.
In this case you have the testimony of
the physicians as to the nature and effect of the
injuries received by SWEET; that is, they have
given you their opinion as to how the wound
upon the forehead might have been made If
in addition to these you have facts proved by
positive testimony it is proper for you to con-
medical experts. 1t is for you to determine
whether, notwithstanding the statements of
the medical experts relative to the injury hay
ing been produced by some weapon, it was not
in fact, produced by the blow of SATURDAY., the
blow the prisoner gave him, or by the fall as de-
scribed by the prisoner. That is it is for you,
after all, to determine as to the value and
weight of the medical testimony
Considerable has been said to you in regard to
the confessions of the prisoner as testified to by
Deputy Marshal Decelle 1t is his duty to de-
tect criminals. The more jealous he is
the better the community is protected If
his zeal should lead him to suppress testimony
that would be reprehensible. As to him as a
witness have nothing to say. Testimony as
to the verbal confessions of prisoner is to be
received with great caution for there are so
many chances for mistake, arising from the |
way and manner in which such confessions are
usually made The witnesses may not use the
same words, or perhaps give the words used
different meaning; the memory may be poor;
the mind of the prisoner confused, or the zeal
OF the officer may be so strong as to lead him to
magnify slight suspicious into sufficient proof
All things have tendency to weaken this kind
of evidence. But notwithstanding all this, the
calm and deliberate admissions of guilt are
among the most effectual proofs in the law
and confessions made at any time or place after
the commission of crime are received as among
proofs of guilt but the degree of credit to be
given to them is for the jury to determine. You
must take the prisoners whole statement, what
is in his favor as well as what is against him
and accept or rejectHthe whole or part as your
common sense dictates
do not intend to comment on the facts or
the testimony. These belong to you. 1t is for
you to determine what credit to give to each
witness and to reconcile contradictory testi-
mony. In this case if you are satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that the blow inflicted ON
SWEET by the prisoner was the cause of his
death your verdict must be guilty, but if you
believe the theory of the defence that another
person inflicted second blow on SWEET that
night which caused his death, or if you have a
reasonable doubt that Loveitt's blow caused his
death your verdict must be not guilty. The
presumption of innocence accompanies the
prisoner through every stage of the trial to the
final verdict, and is only to be overcome by
proof of his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, not possible or imaginary doubt or one
created by ingenuity, for all things depending
on moral evidence are open to some possible or
imaginary doubt. 1t is that state of the case
which after a very careful comparison and con-
sideration of all the testimony leaves your
minds in such condition that you cannot say
you feel an abiding conviction to a moral GER
tainty of the truth of the charge
Your duty is simple and plain. You are to
determine what is proved regardless of conse-
quences. You are to inquire whether the pris-
0ner is guilty or not guilty upon the evidence
before you You are not to be influenced by
sympathy or biased by prejudice.
If you are not satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the prisoner is guilty of the offence
charged he is entitled to an acquittal. lIfl you
are satisfied that he is guilty you are to say so
WlGuOut ltdT VI ldNOT htLucLuDtT tlldt you are
discharging the duties of jurors under the oath
of God, and to Him and your own consciences
you must answer for the performance of those
duties. tr. -It
During the arguments and the charge the
Court room was crowded with spectators. The
jury retired at ten minutes past 3, and shortly
after the Court took a recess. A rumor pre-
vailed that the Court would come in at 8 o'clock
to receive the verdict, and in the meantime the
result of the trial was the subject of good deal
of speculation. The exact progress of the
jury's deliberations were given with an air of
sincerity that amounted to conviction almost
At o'clock the spectators seats in the Court
room were filled with people anxiously "wait-
ing for the verdict" and the corridors OF the
building were occupied with small groups dis
cussing the important question and making in
quiries. Shortly after 9 o'clock supper was
served to the jury in an adjoining room by
George Webster The Judge sat in his private
room with few friends chatting over the
events of the week, the counsel walked anxi-
ously backward and forward or conferred to-
gether tremendously. At II. 20 it was intimated
to the Judge that the jury desired to come in,
and five minutes later the Judge had taken his
seat on the bench, and the jurors came in at
| tended by the officer Throuuh THAR foreman