Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-12-03

u law would ever dream Of conaidexing this other
than the true laug 1a hae boem EaeoRntBg4 ~ che
true Law on this subject, unchaliehged until this
day, and u strange fhet ~ has exaated A@ ovsr
two centuries aud never found TO have been wrong
uutIl the present time, and BY these two men,
WAo seem 70 know more than anybody else.
IL you believe, from the evidence, that there
Was knocking ct The door, and Mr. Floyd was
iuduSed % draw the latch. and that the door was
opened, and the men entered, then we charge you
that there was an actual breaking, and the men
who did 80 were guiltS Of burglary; but H. on the
Other hand, Mr.. Floyd was induced, by fraud,
trick, or article, to open the door, then 1t iS a
constructive entrance. and tspss who did It ere
We, therefore, gentlemen, expressly charge you
that entrance Into a dwelling at night time OBJ
tAlncd by any species Of artiics fraud, amounts
in law to tho crime charged upon the prisoners -
You are not to take the Law from the counsel on
either side. 1 beg you to comprehend that the
charge Of the Court is evidence OF what the law
of The case reallyis, and Il ls your eworn dutyto
accept and be guided by it 40 far rs the Law Is
couCernej. Yoa are the exclutive Judges OF the
l facts, we won't invade your province. We are
the exclusive judges of the lay, and We viii never
consent that functions shall be inteTfared with
Consider we'll the pufpose and intent of the
psrsons who knocked at Mr.. FiOyd's door, and sf-
| lerWards entered. The knocking with ftlSuious
intent was fraudulent pretext It was natural
/ for Mr Floyd TO suppose that the knockers were
peaceful and orderly persons on 4 friendly visit.
| Surely, if he had known they were burglars, he
| wonld never have attempted % open the door.
Having thus. gentlemen, explained to yOu the
general principles of the law on and
] positive evidences, and the crime Of burglary,
nov charge you, IL are satisfied that the dwell
Hight, With the iptent sharaed thSnthe charge has
| mIhe intent with Which the act was committed
/ must be proved BY etreu mstantiAl evidence pFO
vided the surrounding circumstances are sufficient
to warrant you ip that belief After this, the oply
OF ell OF them coma itted the crime. This question
may be afarma'ively established. sitheR byidirec
KxperienCs in eFiminal proct edinEs has thOwr
that crcu mstantial evidences is oftentimes as posi-
econcusive and dsatisfactOry as direct tsstm
Positive testimony g more readily fabricated, b!
WITNESSES swearing t. ocular facts, than by tahfica
ting facts OF ciroumatAntial character. AZ tayn
with each other. and each substantiated By separ
| ate witnesses.
Il Now, gentlemen, take occasion to call your at
tention to some Of the material facts disclosed i
the evidence beeTing upon the identity Of the n o
who committed thii crime with which the prison
| eFS at the bar are charged. Che Court here r.
viewed ali The eFidsnse in regard 60 the article
fo1ud and produced in Court. their similarity an
/ cohnectioq. and thu. testimony in regard to To
70 Justify ajuTy in finding verdict OfgIilty. Il
E the evidence. Such doubt. and none other. shou
be brought to bear in favor of tbs. prisoners.
l mast be a doubt which the sworn duty of jul
compels them 70 entertain think, you gentleme
2 have enough commDn sense 70 take IN the who
st@atiOn, 50 as to arrive At an iatelgsnt verdict
, With these remarks. gentlemen, thanking u
\ The jury were then al II "A. NJ, conducted
t Darins the delivery Of the charge. the prison,
9 retained the dsmeanor they presented on their fl
o entrance, and from all appearance, seemed to
10 to IL 50 O'elSck he jury had not arrived up
a verdict. If Il s announced in time. their conc
sisn will be published by telesrams' IN q la