The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-10-05
taken together point to his guilt, that war

rants his conviction otherwise not.
Another thing is the testimony of Foley
and Stimson that lie was not at work at
that time and was not discharged Con-
slider where he was and ask if he was at
the Berwick House. About this is the tes-
timony of Mr.. Hotchkiss, Mr.. Cain and
the girl as to the appearance of the bed Il
this is all before you and your are to judge
of it, and say whether this is made out.
If he was at tho Berwick House and his
absence from work is accounted for then
all that testimony goes for nothing. These
circumstances may be considered as bear
ing on the main question as TO his guilt or
innocence.
In the testimony of Won Media you must
understand that the statement in the Boston
journal is not evidence, only in the fact of
his reading it to the respondent.
Then the property he had to gain is i'm
portant, and the motive as person would
not be likely to do it without one Con-
slider the evidence on that subject, the tes-
timony of Mr.. Hardy, Mr.. Richardson and
Mr. Willis as to the money she had on
hand to show motive to commit this
crime.
No person is supposed TO have any per-
sonal interest against the respondent. 1t
has appeared that reward has been offer
ed, and this must be weighed by YOU, and
If bias is displayed you must weigh that,
also how much knowledge the witnesses
had on the subject, and whether Indifferent
on it, This reward was lawful If there
is an interest shown in it by the witnesses
that must be weighed.
The presumption which the case starts
ecution must overthrow that, keep that in
your mind constantly in your investigation
of the case. To recall, briefly, you must
find.
That crime as charged has been COM
mitted
That the respondent was where be could
commit this chine.
That she was robbed at the time she was
murdered.
That the respondent had in his posses
sion, soon after. the fruits of this robbery,
because this is sufficient legal evidence TO
convict.
If these are made out does it appear to
IA moral certainty that the respondent did
commit this crime?
If there exists a reasonable doubt, then
he must be acquitted. Otherwise he must
be convicted. The case is within narrow
compass.
If you find the respondent guilty, then
you must find whether he is guilty of MUIR
der in the first or second degree or of man.
slaughter. If not guilty, then that is all.
Bear in mind that the burden of proof is
on the prosecution all the while.
AS to the nationality Or religion of wit
ncsses it has no sort of consequence, or as
10 their business. All testimony is to be
considered as to its degree of credit The
respondent is supposed to he innocent until
convicted.
No words of mine can add to your un-
Outstanding of your responsibility. Prob
ably neither you had so great a RESPONSE
biity resting upon you before. You should
not be deferred from it by itsresponsibility
What do | do according to the law of the
land. Administer the law as it is. You
and are sworn the same. You should
not shrink from doing your duty manfully.
Fear nothing but to do wrong. Take the
testimony and bring TO it your best mind
and judgment, with u determination to
convict or acquit. You no doubt have felt
the responsibility. | trust you will not
neglect to take the proper time; if not
time this week then take next week
One subject suggested by the respond
ent's counsel; something had been said in
the argument that no explanation had been
made as to the prisoners whereabouts. No
inference should be made against him be
cause lie has not So far as for himself
yon have no right to consider; there is no
law to make him testify; his silence is not
to be weighed. He had right to sit and
prove nothing. Respondent says he was at
Providence; if he went he was gone there
when these goods were pledged.
have not undertaken to call your at
tention as fully and definitely as / might,
as the case has been fully and ably argued
on both sides.