Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-05-21
NOT GUILTY.
Mrs. william HOusen Acquitted Of the
Murder Of Her MOther.in-LaW.
The Jary Ont but Fifteen Minutes
Judge Frazier's Charge-HOw the
Verdict was Received.

Verdict was Received.
| The case of Mrs. VIM. Housen, charged
| with participation in the murder Of her
mother-in-law, in March, 1873, was brought
| to termination yesterday afternoon, by
verdict of not guilty. Anticipation of the
/ event had drawn together large crowd of
spectators. Capt. Dodd was the last speaker
| for the defense and finished during the
| morning the able argument begun the day
| before. The argument was concluded by
| Attorney General Caldwell for the State in
mastery effort of three hours length.
Judge Frazier then read to the jury an elab-
crate and carefully prepared charge, which
| was in substance as follows:
THE CHARGE TO THE JURY.
After stating the case and drawing the
| distinction between principals and accesso-
| ries, Judge Frazier proceeded substantially
/ as follows:
If the defendant procured Nolen and
| Stokes, through the agency Of Barnes, to
kill the deceased, and she was present when
| the deed was done, acquiescing in and con-
senting to the death, although she took no
actual part in the killing, she would be a
| principal in the second degree, and equally
/ guilty the death with those who actually
| did the deed. But if this defendant hired,
i persuaded, induced or procured Nolen,
| Stokes or Barnes, any one or all of them,
| either through the agency of Barnes or 9TH
| erwise, TO kill the deceased, and when they
or either of them, or any one Of them, came
| to do the deed, and before the deed was
done, this defendant, to avoid seeing or
assisting in the killing, ran off and was
not present when the killing was done,
then she would not be a principal in any
degree, but would be an accessory before
the fact, as charged in tine second count Of
the Indictment.
The identity, presence and agency Of
| this defendant, if she participated in the
| killing of deceased, may be proven by di-
rec. or circumsGantial evidence, or both
| kinds.
| Willis Barnes, one Of the parties charged
/ in the indictment, has been released from
the charge by the Attorney General enter
| ing nolle PROSE-, as to him, on the record;
and the State has endeayOred to prove the
agency and participation Of this defendant
| in the death Of the deceased, by the posi-
I-tive or direct evidence Of said witness.
The testimony of this witness has been
attacked by the learned counsel for the de-
fense, not only on the grounds that he has
admitted his infamy by showing that he
was particeps criminis, but by his gen
eral want Of credibility as witness.
There can be no doubt that accompliees
may be used as witnesses for or against
each other, when not otherwise disquali-
fed. But the credit to be given to such
testimony or witnesses is always open to
the consideration of the jury. The ac-
knowledged tUrpitude Of the witness must
in all cases necessarily stamp his testimony
with great suspicion, and it should always
be more carefully scrutinized when the
witness lies under any temptation from the
hope Of pardon or other benefit to
himself And although verdict
of Jury, founded on state
ments of an accomplice alone, might be
held LEGAL, as they are the absolute and ex-
elusive judges of the credibility Of the wit
nesses produced, and the force and effect Of
the testimony given; yet no jury ought ever
TO convict party of high crime alone upon
the uncorrObOrated statements Of an
acknowledged accOmplice in the crime
charged. For it would be hard indeed, as
/ observed by the great and learned Lord
Hale, ito take away the life Of any person
upon the evidence Of a particeps eriminis,
unless there be considerable circumstances,
which may give the greater credit
TO what he swears." Hence it
has become well settled rule of evidence
that a jury should never convict a par
ty on the testimony Of an ayowed accom-
plice, unless his testimony IS strongly cor
Toborated by other reliable testimony in the
case. And it is wholly insufficient merely
to eorrobOrate his narrative Of the trsnsae-
tion touching the commission of the crime,
for if he was present and took part in the
transaction. he would necessarily, know the
circumstances as they took place,
and he would most likely speak
truth as to the details of the transaction,
although he may have intended to speak
! falsely as to his partners in the crime or the
participation of the defendant. Therefore,
to warrant the jury in giving credit to the
testimony of an accOmplice, his statements
implieting the defendant with the com
mission Of or procuring the commission OF
the crime, ought to be cOrrobOrated by re-
liable, other, and Independent proof, either
direct or circumstantial, as il would be
highly dangerous to convict on the evil
dence of an accOmpliee, Ii uneorTOOOrated
as 70 the agency Of the accused.
BY circumStantial proof is meant that
measure and de- -ree OF circylmstantial eyi-
dence which is necessary to produce con-
victiOn in the minds of the jury Of the
. truth of the fact in question. All circum-
stances are either of a mechanical nature,
which are the objects of sense, or they are
| of a moral nature dedueed from a knOwl-
| edge Of man as rational and moral agent.
: Those of mechanical kind usually con-
sist in proximity Of time and space, and all
. such as show that the supposed agent
had the means and Opportunity OF
| doing the particular fact charged.
The connection between a mans con
duct and his motives is Of the NOR
al kind, and from such, juries are
often able to infer a mans motives from
his acts, and also to inter what his conduct
was from the motive by which he was
known to be influenced. So in criminal
cases, proof that the party accused was in
fluenced by strong motives of interest OF
revenge to commit the Offense, although
exceedingly weak and inconclusive in
| itself, still, when connected with other
circumstances, plainly tending to implicate
the accused, may be of considerable weight.
And on the other hand, the absence Of any
apparent motive must always operate
strongly as a circumstance in favor of the
accused.
Upon the whole it is absolutely essen
tial to the validity of circumstantial proof,
first that all the circumstances from which
the conclusion is to be drawn should be
fully established by direct and reliable
proof. Secondly, that all the facts should
be consistent with the hypothesis or guilt of
the defendant. Third, thatthe circumstan-
ces when taken together should be of con-
elusive nature and tendency. Lastly, it is
essential that the circumstances should to a
moral authority certainly exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved.
Ifthejury, after examining allthe facts aan
circumstances detailed as evidence in the
cause, guided by the rules and directions
suggested, and by an honest and unbiased
desire to arrive at the truth, are still not
fully satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt
of the guilty agency and participation of
this defendant in the death of the deceased,
then they should acquit her altogether.
But if the jury should be so satisfied Of the
guilty agency of this defendant in the death,
then it will be necessary for them to fur
ther inquire and determine what IS the
character of her offense, the degree Of her
crime and the punishment to be inflicted.
4 z l. Il 90 10 ggxr-ha