Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-01-09
The End of the stokes Trial.

The End of the Stokes Trial.
The breaking of telegraphic commu-
nication with New York, Sunday night,
caused the non-receipt by us, of the clos
ing scenes of the Stokes trial, we there
fore reproduce, this morning, from the
New York Times the charge of Judge
Boardman, the verdict of the jury, etc
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
The following is Judge Boardman's
charge:
l congratulate you on the near APP
proach of the termination of this very
protracted case, and | also have occa-
sion to compliment you on the apparent
patience and attention which you have
given to the case and to the evidence
during its progress. 1t gives me pleas
ure also to commend the counsel In this
case for the distinguished ability and
zeal, accompanied at the same time with
courtesy, with which they have manag-
ed the case and discussed the testimony,
and protected the interests which are
respectively assigned to them. In view
of what | said early in the case, | feel
also disposed to return my thanks to the
gentlemen of the press of this city in
that they have withheld, so far as | be-
lieve or know, any comments upon this
case during its progress calculated to stir
feeling or excite partisan prejudice, or
anything to interfere with the due and
proper administration of justice.
Having said this much, will, with
out further comment, devote myself to
this case, and as briefly as possible pre-
sent to you certain leading features and
characteristics which may assist you in
your investigation, and aid you in COM
ing to a Just conclusion. 1t is proper
that / should clear away as far as posi-
BILE certain eobwebs that have accumu-
lated about the case, and are well Calcu-
lated to distract attention from the real
points you are to pass upon. Among
these | may name that the character of
Fisk, who is not upon trial here, is not
to be considered by yo1 in any respect
except in a single one, to which | shall
presently call your attention whether
he was a good or bad man, whether vile
in habits or personally pure and virtu-
Gus, is matter which is not in issue in
this case, and you will do this Court in
justice if you allow it to prejudice your
minds or influence the verdict to which
You are to come.
Upon the other hand more or less has
been said as to the defendant his social
relations, and his wealth. These have
nothing to do with your verdict. How
ever high his social position, whatever
rank or station he may enjoy, whatever
wealth he may be possessed of, however
Influential or however good or virtuOus
l. 4
not to. affect your judgment. These
things are not TO thwart the progress of
the law. He is to be Judged of as any
other. All in this tribunal stand equal
none entitled to special protection,
none exempt from punishment for crimes
of which he is guilty. Neither ven
geance nor hatred by the special friends
of Fisk nor sympathy for the sorrow Of
the friends of the prisoner should warp
your judgment or turn your minds a mo-
mcnt from the real questions in this case.
1t would be a disgrace to the administra-
ton Of criminal justice if your verdict
could. by any possibility, be swayed by
any such instrUmentality-a reproach TO
you personally to allow such COnsidcra-
ton to weigh moment against your Oaths
10 decide impartially on the evidence be-
fore you.
Now l say, think, without exception
from any one, that the killing of Fisk
by the prisoner stands conceded. There
is nothing in the case, as | understand,
to raise a doubt of the fact that the
prisoner killed Fisk by shots fired on
Jan. G, 1872. Discarding the questions
conceded to be true, and the circumstan-
ces of the case which you have heard of,
let US see what the real point of differ
ence is-what the real question you are
called on to decide, and, and seeing that
plainly and clearly, what are the instru-
mentalities that have been brought to
convince your judgment and affect your
verdict.
The killing being conceded, it natu-
rally becomes a question whether such
killing was a crime That is the ques-
ton. 1t is confined within the exceed
ingly narrow limits coincident with the
occurrence, or Immediately preceding
the act, whether this killing was a crime.
The counsel on both sides agree that the
act was either murder in the first degree.
manslaughter in the third degree, or JUS
tifiable homicide. 1t is for you to say
which of the characteristics properly at
tach to it from the evidence before you.
To intelligently determine that ques-
ton. the most important fact is, were
there two pistols found? For if there
was but one and that the pistol produc-
ed before you, it is conceded to be the
pistol of Stokes, fired by him, and which
inflicted the fatal wound. If that is
sustained, is there any other evidence in
the case which by possibility can be al
legged to show the prisoner to have acted
in self defense under the circumstances
If Fisk had no pistol, and so could make
no threatening assault, was it possible
for the prisoner to justify the firing of
his pistol? Before looking directly at
that, let me say a few words as to the
character of the evidence on which this
issue is to be determined.
1t is apparent, as has been stated by
counsel on both sides, that there ismuch
discrepancy in the testimony. 1t is
conceded by either counsel, also. that
much of it is of that character which
does not 90 to the credibility or affect
the integrity of the witnesses. In a case
of this character, fatal shot is fired,
up to the moment of shooting no alton
ton is given, from the moment OF shoot-
ing all are under extreme excitement.
II is onito impossible that any two wit
nesses should give exactly the same
statements, should see the same persons,
hear the same language, identify the
same locations of persons and incidents,
and speak in the same words Such a
thing is practically impossible, and
would be circumstance of very grave
suspicion. Mere discrepancies arising
out of habits of inattention, or lack of
observation, or through lacking memo
ry, or different positions in which per
sons are placed, or differences of suscep-
tibilities to excitement, are not inconsis-
tent with honesty and integrity of the
witnesses or the truthfulness of their
story One Of the first duties of jurors
is where it can consistently be
done to reconcile the testimony of all
the witnesses without impugning their
honesty or integrity. 1t is also their du-
ty, as it should be their pleasure, to be-
lieve that every witness has told the
truth, and if it becomes impossible to
reconcile their testimony, if 1t is SO con-
fiicting and opposite that you must come
to the conclusion that one or the other