The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-10-05
Trial of John r. Phair.
(Concluded from Second Pace.


is considered as being unprepared for DEATH
The killing of person sick unto death or
sentenced to death is unlawful killing and
that constitutes this CRIME.
1t is necessary to make out that this per-
son was unlawfuly billed by some means
named in the indictment. That she was
alive there is the evidence of tho body in
the flames, the rescue of the body and the
examination and testimony of Drs Allen
and Mead. AS to how she came TO her
DEATH the Identification of the tooth - and
as to this is the further testimony of Dr.
Lawton. All this added to the fact that
she has not been seen since, you have be-
fore you to determine the fact whether she
was killed by some one else beside herself
or was killed in self defence, Remember
the evidence and opinion of these doctors,
take all that into account and then make
out whether she was unlawfully killed.
Malice means with wicked mind. The
fact of death, if found killed unlawfully,
is improbable with the idea of killing her.
self; whether any property was to be gain
ed by taking her life, and all these other
circumstances that attended her death are
to be considered as to whether she was un'
lawfully killed Now il these facts are
made out, then it is murder in the first de-
gree. If there was deliberate setting
about, with plan to take her life before
him and the carrying his intentions into
effect, that IS murder in the first degree
Or if her life was taken in the act of per-
petrating a robbery upon her, because rob
berry would be felonious, taking by force.
In this view elements of robbery are to be
made out as to whether anything was taken
from her against her will, in the act of
murder, that would be murder in the first
degree You must find that she had prop
erty in her possession and taken by such
force as to overcome her power to keep
possession, and if murder was committed
in doing that it would be murder in the
first degree.
Also notice if her life was taken in at
tempting to commit arson. The burning
of dwelling house is arson By felonious
attempt, Arson and robbery do not make
murder, but the more important question is
whether her life wGs taken in committing
robbery.
If there was murder in fact without
these other attending circumstances. then
it was in the second degree.
And if there was killing without the
malice aiorcthought it is manslaughter.
1t is very important to the respondent
that you remember and understand these
different degrees.
If unlawful killing has not been made
out then the respondent must be acquitted.
If made out then it is manslaughter, un-
less malice aforethought is made out. If
that is made out then it is murder IN the
first degree.
have been speaking OF the committal
of the crime by any person, whether the
main offense is made out and whether one
degree of crime has been committed
Court then took recess until seven
o'clock in the evening when the judge con-
cluded his CHARGE
1t is necessary that the prosecution make
and the respondent cannot be convicted
without. If n crime has been committed,
that is. unlawful killing, then the question
for,you to decide il whether respondent
did it,
The evidence to be relied on in this case
is entirely crcumslantial, and still compe-
tent to convict him if made out is COM
petent to convict and is of the highest au-
thority to show the guilt of the respondent
1t is enough that the circumstances are
consistent with guilt, but they must make
the guilt of respondent apparent beyond
reasonable doubt. Each fact and circum-
stance is entitled to consideration, and no
fact NUT appear inconsistent with the
guilt, so that each circumstance, standing
by itself, shall point unerringly to the guilt
of the respondent If so, it is as good as
direct evidence, and even better, as per-
sons falslfy sometimes Crimes are gen
orally done in secret and there is always
the fear of false statements by direct evil
dence.
Now, the principal circumstance that
you are to rely upon is that the deceased
was robbed and that the respondent was
shown to have the fruits of this robbery
soon after, and gave false accounts of the
same. The evidence of false statements
alone is not of great weight If he may
have been overwhelmed, or to meet a cir
cumstance apparently against him, or to
falsify wlfully. He is not on trial for
classifying, and innocent persons even dc
frequently falsity if they think necessary
to show their innocence.
The great point having been the. robbery
at the time of the murder and that the re.
spondent had the fruits unexplained, this
circumstantial evidence is an important
case for you to consider. Whether she
was robbed at the time of the murder? take
up that by itself. Did she have anything
to be robbed of Take that up by itself
Dora Wilson and Mrs. Davis and others
testify as to property having been seen
there in her possession. You must settle
whether she had that property to be robbed
of first. If there were goods there before
and they were gone after the murder ther
that has tendency to show robbery. L
these goods produced were the goods sht
had then, find whether respondent had
them soon after. If he had them at al
that is evidence that he had them soon af
ter. Upon this fact is the testimony Of
Pierce, Abrahams, Vogt, Livingstone
Smith, Ehlrich and Donovan. Their evi
dencc is to be taken as to whether he hat
these goods in his possession.
Then there is this entry of his name up