New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-11-26

IN you fnd however that these acts were all done In
Ignorant or you doubt on
binaon for the release OF Benton according 10 plan
whether they are not consistent with an innocent
ercise OF supposed authority after the authority TO re
resent the Government had been surrendered an.
other you are required by law TO give the fun
benefit OF tho reasonable doubt the defendant Ia
whose favor the dOubt exists.
And here 1t Ia necessary to call your attention tho
law that you not TO hold any other party liable fOf
OF either Of the Others, unless have found
from the evidence the combination have formed
between those charged, or between two OF them or
those who joined in after tne confederacy was formed
II you ind cOnfederacy to have existed or 10 have
received the Of any one more To such con
federacy-and then you are o. visit responsibility upon
such only you find TO have formed tue conspiracy.
who Joined ia after formation n YOU find the
evidence that Harrington directed the movements OF
Richards the night OF the 23t Of April yn to de-
termine what tins meant. In determining TINS
10 look to the evidence az 10 what was dOne-it you
md that any thing was done ny hD-to pace books or
documents IN tho safe under the idea OF misleading
entrapplng Alexander; also yOu are to LOOK 10 his
whole conduct that OCCASION TO be connected by
with what you find to nave been proved 10 he his
declaration to Richards to sly nothing a0ou, the mat.
Alexander not aroused, according you mar
find the evidence IN that particular.
ARTHUR b. WILLIAMS.
There is view Of the law applicable to the
dence which your attention must be called 70. Yoa
must determine the facts which the evidence proves
Does the evidence prove TO your minds, beyond 0
reasonable doubt, that Harripgons acts and conduct
the night OF the entering his oce-eyerything con
neced herewith as shown by the eyidence-lo all tue
circum ances show that there was an intention and de-
to connect Alexander falsely win the transactions
by which Alexander could be thought, suspected
accused OF being party theretol IneG YOU viii he
bound TO say here "a wrong and n the eyiene
has satisfied your minds beyond able doubt Thai
there was conspiracy som where, aud you shall Is
satisfied that else charged IN the indctm,nt
was concerned M the same, you VIII lud him gIutT
and find whom he Il guilty wl'h.
When you come to consider the connecuon ~ Arfhu,
b. Williams with the alleged conspiracy, you are
judge OF 1t In the Sht OF human associations ana OF
Legitimate friendships. In conspiracy ana wnore
spirdcy is charged ana me evidence consists 81 tho
proof OF many acts by different prues, aud when
any party shown ~ the july during the transtc
ton and these acts have u be consruei Dy the jury
the law says you look 10 the reactions OF The
parties to solve the trIe meaning of those acts. Tie
law however. never means 10 hOd one person RESPONSE
Die Tor tho acts OF ahO mr. however infinite 'ioJ may
be, unless the facts show participation IN the deed
itself Ifyou lind from the evidence that t9tIe was an
intimate association between hariihStOn ana arthur D.
Williams, aud that Williams was In company WIZ
yGa mst a Gh irS S oihsr EVIDENCE or from
all taken together that he knew what he
doing and that he was aiding In the conspiracy 10
niure Alexander by bringing false chltge as lil 10
the Indictment or you must DO satlsheh ina hc lent
himself Dhudly, not caring his participation ud iead
10 the result whatever that result ngnt 3e ior ~ that
he would be responsible. III upon ths you nave
reasonable doubt you are bound ~ resolve tuAt dou1E
Toe mere fact Whitley the chief OF the detac.
tive force would not Of ltsoI just ~ even presumpuOa
That he knew OF OF CONSENTED 10 nDhuiOn TO
defame. a legal suspicion cannot be nddked Ia from
THIS fact lie must DC proved gIty Dy the evidence VI
acts OF guilt You must not start with the presump
ton your minds that because be- at the head Of
TINS force therefore he must have known OF aud ap
proved what his suOOrduates were DONG In, idea
would the best OF men. ana we could have no grad
his those OF all the othcrs. II MS authority ID
shown to have existed how9yeT, men u may De- pre-
TIE DEFENSE.
You are now brought to the consideration Of the dc
Tense in testimony Several witnesses have 6eet
introduced to impeach directly Zrruth and Hayes
Tin any particular the evidence Of the Government
had cast suspicion upon the conduct or association Of
either defendant defendants which he or they could
or ought 70 explain and evidence OF the defense ha
explained that conduct or association 10 your saisdc
ton, far that difficulty might have existed
you are relieved Oft. Farther thln that, IL such sls
pIciOn had been created and alter considering the
evidence OF both the Government and the defense,
reasonable doubt exists IA your mlnd whch VA Tue
evidence prepOndeaes, the Law requires you 10 give "a
the defendant defendants III whose favor the doubt
exists the benefit thereof THIS rae you VIII Apply u
the kilograms II, however, the explanations aemped
by the Tense should not BE- satisfactory then you VII
look to all the evidence together 10 see You nho
enough in It 10 convict either one or more ol the ai
charged IN the indictment with tDe supposed sac TOD
berry. Are these iolegrams all consistent WIN Tue con
ueciOn OF the parties 20 whom Tue! relate Win sons
other matters than me saie Di'n,' , "n', ~
other matter has been shown 10 your s'tls acton 70
been In existence at he same tn' ahi 70 ehlrh
they might according to the evidence be apphhi Or
If you are satisfied tIat some Oth'r matter vas Dthg
looked up by the wonderful mlcaIn'y oi iAt detective
force and there Is reasonable duct wAethr - Apply
them to the one or TO tht othrr TIE Ia" req rs you
to apply them for the Deneht OF the drieu iint or
defendants But that reasonable dlubJ mast arise Out
OF all the evidence On the subject or sdI1is coAhoe'od
with the kilograms
Gentlemen, If the testimony OF Hayes and truth /.
found by you to fan according to the rules OF Law
shall yOu then would there scarcely b. any cNpana
Ol tho evidence Witnesses nave been nlrOiuc ii who
truth and veracity was bad. some knew hun better
than others, all those for the defense st'ted
that far their knowledge Of their character and
reputation for truth went, that reputation was biL
Here you to look to the testimony oil tHe Witnesses
brought forward 10 sustain the character i"t uuth
Apply the same test to them wmch nave instructed
you to apply 10 the impeachng witnesses. Determine
from tho evidence how lorg they have known them aud
whether they were I'D "a situation 10 KNOW Widt char
they bore. The law Will apply force 10 thr tNt
OF witnesses, neishDors Of Al pedched enc" "ho
have known h'm Tor some TIME ana had DlSn,as ,i'n
actions with him. wien they that they never htad
any i'll Of him. # the jury believe lhOs" WITNESSES Iho
brought to sustain Hayes ad Zrid,h are oIen
to impeachment II they are not OF good character them
selves
These are the rules to govern you in estimating
whether Hayes and Zrruth are sustained IN their c1ir
Tor truth by the same quantity OF evidence a th
which has been used TO assal tAeir character ShoHid
you find from the evidence mat the character j. ABOUT
where il was before any evidence was introduced on
that branch OF the subject directly, then You return 10
other branches OF subject OF beef IN their state
sons or "a good many, would not believe them worthy
OF credit aud may nt that other persons, or
yOu wOuld not legally b. authorized 10 base Your YER
dict OF acqutta or glty upon that consleritoD'
ton Of what they sta,e to be fots witn olcr fact. lat
you satisfied have been proved. f'd mass d.er-
uino whether they have taken few gwen pJlIis iiOm
which 10 start aud wIch th'y knew ~Oull be proved,
and thereon built uctIOn, arontnce. lou lust d'tr'
niue from evidence WniJ MOVIE could haze actd-
atep Hayes, and Zruth. ANA Bnton IL nave gone nto
empty safe, II there was hothih- OcDih' Po''deu
YOU nd from the evidence thai they hd reason 10 De-
ieyc that nothing valuable IN the sa,t anu u
Tor YOU TO say what that something behind Wa; II the
evidence satisfies you that something WAS behind,
then YOU must tud from the evidence whether rAcrO l
two of those indicted connected vain wiIt WAS
behind, aud whether that the conspiracy.
Remember that n there no CONSPIRACY. then
there was a burglary ana II IN re was cOnlrtr' as
charged, there was no burglary. There might nave
been both piracy and burglary II the evidence
shows that Harrington knew nothing OF It, OF IL the cEl
dence fails to establish That Preparations were male W
those having control over tho office 10 let the opening
of the safe be effected Bolts bars NUT have been
iafp or
or "A bolt bar broken, latch or WINDOW raised or
broken, else there would baye been no hurgaiy. All
the matters arising from the evidence, yOu must Goa
slider in order to determine what that evidence sihrs
you, was the motive urging the conduct al ItIuth,
n