Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-10-09


detective left Rutland Saturday after
noon and returned with the bonds on the
Wednesday following, and the proseeu-
ton say he could not have traced them
out himself soysoon as that unless Adams
told him where they were or gave them
to him. This is circumstance to be
weighedby you for what you think it is
worth. These arc the main circum-
stances relied upon. To entitle the
prosecution to a eonRietions they must
show that these circumstances that are
shown, must convince the jury beyond
reasonable doubt that the respondent is
guilty, and each circumstance must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt II
this is done you should eonHiet-other-
wise, aequit 1t is not necessary that
the prosecution should prove every cir
cumstance they attempt beyond reason
able doubt; but they must prove sufli-
Gent circumstances beyond reasonable
| doubt to convince you beyond reason
able doubt that the respondent commit
ted this crime, and if any circumstance
| in the case raises a reasonable doubt Of
the. guilt of prisoner. then you must ac-
quit him
1t is proper foryou TO consider what
motives the respondent had 10 commit
this crime with the ether circumstances.
| A man is presumed to be innocent until
| he is proved guilty, but he is more
liable to commit crime where he has
a strong motive to do it.
| This is all there is Of H. The presHmp-
ton is that all men Will be honest at all
times and motive to commit crime
/ raises no presumption Of guilt. but only
! shows a greater liability to commit
| crime. Good character is to be consid-
cred in the same way; a. man Of good
character will be less liable to do Grim
iual act than if he had bad character.
p! Considerable comment has been made
that the respondent has not produced
the testimony OF the detective, Mr..
/ Chapman. All there is of this is, that
you may presume his testimony would
not help the respondent, but You must
moi. suppose his testimony would make
against the respondent. IF you think
! Chapman's testimony would have been
material, you may consider the fact that
! it was not produced not as making
4 against respondent, but as being liable
! TO be something that would not help
him. The respondents wife cannot tes-
tify, and you must not consider the fact
that she was not offered as bearing against
the respondent. The reasonable doubt
| spoken Of simply means, you must be
convinced, so that you feel certain-so
you feel sure. You must be sure he is
/ guilty. He is presumed to be innocent
and it is not enough that you think he is
guilty, or that he is probably guilty.
That won't do; you must be convinced,
and if any circumstance raises a reason
able doubt, you must acquit. You
should lay aside all prejudice, one way
or the other. The responsibility on the
jury is great, but you must meet.
You will proceed with great caution,
and without bias, and take care that you
do no wrong to the respondent. You
are not to be governed by sympathy or
by desire to punish crime. ..-
The Court will come in at half past
eight tomorrow morning to take the
verdict, but no other business will be
done in court until o'clock Saturday
morning. -. ...a-.
Fr5day, October, Sd, 1S73.-At half
past eight a. M, the Court went in to
receive the verdict in the case of State
vs.. Hiram f. Adams. The jury returned
a vedict of mot guilty. The friends
of Mr.. Adams, who were present in
large numbers, received the verdict with
acclamations of delight and approval,
and crowded about him with their con-
gratulations. The respondent shook hands
with his counsel, the grand jury and his
friends, amid which the court took
recess until 9 o'clock Saturday morning.
Tuesday, October THE following
cases were heard:
No. 101, George w. Warren V. Brandon
Manufacturing Co. Prout, Simons and
Walker for plaintiff; Ormsbee, Briggs
and E. J. Phelps for defendant.
No. 95, Phoebe NJ. Scott V. Harvey
Rowe. Barnes Frisbie and Edgerton &
Nicholson for plaintiff; J. B. Beaman
for defendant.
No. 100, Orrin J. Lockwood V. Aaron
Aldrich, apt. J. Q. Hawkins and c. II.
Joyce for plaintiff; Joel c. Baker for
defendant
No. PSI, Margaret a. Brassel '.
Whitman S. OIin Warren H. Smith
and Dunton & Veazey for plaintiff;
Edgerton & Nicholson and o. a. Martin
for defendant.
Wednesday, October 8td.-To-day was
spent in the trial of the following cases:
No, PSI. Magarct A. Brassell V.
Whitman 5. DIN, was finished. Same
attorneys as yesterday.
No. 179 w. B. Hoskinson, ct. a.,
Y. John Matot. w. H. Walker and Chas.
Joyce, attorneys for plaintiffs. Z. j.
Ormsbcc and D. E. Nicholson for defcn-
dants. s.
No. Pa. Ayrus Brown V. D. W.
Rogers. Barnes Frisbie and ]. B.
Bromley, attorneys for plaintiffs. Chas.
H. Joyce, attorney for defendant.
No. 135. Parker, ellison & Dewey Y.
Sutherland Falls Marble Co, - argued
by w. G. Veazey, for plaintiffs. and
Redfield Proctor for defendants.
No. 228. III. g. Tubbs Y. FrankIil
Post. Dunton s. Veazey and John
Prout for plaintiff Edgerton & Mich
olsonand ID. j. Nicholson, attorneys for
defendants. Still on trial.