, 1873-01-14
your recollection and it Is fo- you to weigh consider

The points relied upon by the defence may be- for
neI good character of the accused second, tho i'm
pechment o1 the crcdibty Of the material witnesses
for the prosecution.
show he a able to do so, his previous good charac
ter for the purpose Of 1ebuttng tho conclusion OF
stanees given in evidence against him and when cdr
cun,staueo is susceptible Of twc constructions, one
tending to show his guilt and another consistent with
hs innocence evidence Of former good character mag
turn the scale IN favor Of his Innocence This
testimony should no: be allowed much, If any weight
against positive and direct evidence Of the guilt Of The
Accused but when tt is sought to establish guilt BY
evidence Of suspicious circumstances Alone this class
Of evidence u entitled to confederation and weight For
instance: il person Is found In possession Of
eeoen goods, possession alone, unexplained, deemed
sufficient to Justify verdict for larceny against the
possessor but IN some cases the Courts have held
that evidence Of previously rrcproachnhe character Is
sufactent to overcome the presumption Of guilt because
he might have como In possession Of them or theg
haye been IN his possession, without his having been
guilty Of stealing them. He may aropurchnsed them
honestly In trade from stranger who has disappeared
or thy might bsp ts LEFT in bis
But. ssid beio1s against 7s5y good evidence, q
accused, evidence Of this Kind should have
ato w Of y lame bsye
yielded to temptation, and committed crime, and aso
with what facility almost any person can call wit
Ing them. say ' his T much; not to dispsrage The
evidence Of this lind which the accused has adiuced,
hut to caution you against giving too much weight to
woke In his favor the accused wiu Of course call
only these whom he knows 's1n only speak fnvoraby
Of him.
There are various ways Of inpeaching witnesses
as for tusance, BY showing by tie testimony Of per-
sons "ho NOV the witness that ne Of sne .na haa
borhood where he she resides and ia Known,
and t therefore, not to BE- believed oath; thata
witness has ade statements OF tho subject matter Of
his testimony contradictory aud different from that
testified to on the trial The hitter Is the method
adopted in this case In reference to this kind Of i'm
peachment It will be sufficient for to aay that the
contradiction must be upon material and relevant
point. witness n1ny state minor DETAIL not neces-
s1ry contested with the main incident, In different
manner at different times, and yet not Justify doubt
as to the tthfu1uess Of the main statement &c. too,
what he AYERS to when tntcrrogated by IN unauthor
lied, ohlcdous or meddlesome person. on purpose to
thsow tas s, sueh person Of the scent; .s Or
case. wttness may also have 1nada wilfufly false
staternts ct materia matters In regard to transac
truth on the triai tho crebiiity Of wineas being
after all matter for the Jury and It being for them
to Ray whether they think under a the circumstanccs
In this you Will bear in mind the examination Of
ali the Witnesses, Blattner Stewart uenneberry, and
faca IN ts % caso and YOU vii also bear In mind tao
testimony offered to show their former statements Or
testimony and is for sou to say whether there is
even II such Standardization Is established, 1t i'll
still be for 5ou to determine whether the former or
cannot dis1ntss this branch Of the c.se without
calling your attention to the fact that The earned
counsel for the defence in his able argument for his
ent Of the witness Stewart In 1egnrd to tho taking OF
the money from tho mouth Of the defendant the Jury
70 @
tsst It, n.s tn; zai sSs
RTAtuitpua perjury, the most hefnpu8 of crimes,
rh8ps known to the moral decalogue or the criminal
m no BE- s 70 Il eoEsa
committing the crime is usually deened one Of the
best EVIDENCES Of the innocence Of the accused
And here effort is nado by the proof to show that
t1ation Of the crime with which he is charged by
tho defendant guilty. Tho is barren Of any
evidence to show that Stewart, or any OF tho
witnesses for the prosecution for thas n.atter,
end Of their ow TO attain by swearing falsely against
the defendant say this not for the purpose of ad
ittng that you Obliged to accept the dilemma Of tho
cAutionng you not to hastily accept the conclusion OF
perjury aganst the witnesses for the prosecution un
less fully warranted by the evidence. Nor do intend
to ~ but what perjury may be proven clearly that
II must be taken as established agaiust With
q reasonable ruen such crime should be presumed
against person be he witness or party, without SONS
Or motive being shown.
To conclude, than, you find from careful con-
sde1ntion Of al the facts tnat the defendant Is guilty
Of tho offence charged, Of either OF tho offences
named in the indictment, will SAY 80 BY your YER
dict IT, on the contrary, you find there il
able doubt Of tho defendants guilt, either because Of
tie want of the eredbty Of the wtnessss Or my Of
dcfendant are still roconcsbls With the hypothesis Of
Ths form Of your verdict will be: We, the Jury, |
find the defendant guilty, or not guilty, Us you may
and- The extent Of punishment Is to be hxed by the
Court under the lay therefore, the punshlnent
der tho first count ts different from that under the