The Wichita city eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1872-1883, 1874-06-11
TIE e2EAT TRIAL.
THE TERRIBLE HOLOCAUST.
Arthur Winner Found Guilty of
Murder in the First Degree.

W.P. Winner. of Kansas City. was
the last witness called by the defence.
lie testified that he was the father OF
The defendant. and that Arthur would
be 81 years old next August. Arthur
had ALWAYS lived at home until about
the time he came to Wichita with Nc
Mutt. The defence then rested their
case. \ few more witnesses were re-
called on re-rebuttal. but the substance
of their testimony has been published
before.
The counsel for the defence through
S. NJ. Tucker announced that they de-
sired 10 present and argue some spe-
rial instructions. The jury was sent
on, of the room. Mr.. Tucker claimed
that the state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that tho body found
In the building was that of w. W. Sc
yicr. The information charged that
w w. Scyicr was killed 10y burning.
That fact must he proved beyond il
reasonable doubt The testimony Of
f.rcd by ihc state tended to show that
the probability was that the deceased
was poisoned with a narcotic, while
one witness swore, positively, that the
head of the deceased, when first dis
covered. presented the appearance Of
having been cleft upon the back part.
sufficiently 10 admit a mans hand.
The special instructions offered were
ruled out to which EXCEPTIONS were
noted. The jury were then recalled from
their raom, and the judge proceeded TO
read the instructions. The court room
was very quiet. Arthur Winner, whose
father and brother sat next TO him.
gave close attention 70 the instruc-
tions.
The court explained to the jury the
cases wheriu homicide is justifiabic,
excusable, or frloncous. That fclone-
ous homicide NAV be murder or man
daughter. Then laid down some gen.
eral principles to enable the jury to
clearly understand the crimes of muir
der and NAH slaughter in their several
degrees, as defined 10y the statutes OF
this state, and the meaning of the
terms, ..malicc aiorethought' deli
beration and generalization" and how
the feloneous intent may be proved,
ard then instructed the jury as follows:
-IIaving explained to you. gentle
men. in this general way the nature and
character of the crime of murder III
the first and second degrees, l will
proceed TO direct YOU how TO apply
these general principles TO The evil
icnce in this ease.
The defendant. together with his co,
defendant. J. W. McNutt, is charged
with the willfui. deliberate and pre-
mediiatcd murder of w. W. SEWER,
otherwise known as Texas other
wise known as Tex" by means of
burning. To convict the defendant of
this charge you must find from the ev-
idencc the following material facts
First. that there was Il frame house,
belonging TO one Charles Mcach, stu
aied on lot numbered seyenty-thrce,
on Main street, in the city of Wichita,
Sed.wick county. state oi Kansas,
Second. that there was such person
ms the one alleged TO have been muir
dercd. Third. that such person was
in the above described house. Fourth,
that the defendant, knowing the prem
Uses. wilfullv. maliciously, deliberately
and premcditatcly set fire TO SAID
house. and thereby burned said person
Ia death. Or. in other words, that
the defendant, alone or in con JUNCTION
with McNutt. by wilfully and mali
ciously setting fire To the house. killed
and murdered w. w. Sewer, with de-
liberation and generalization. within
the meaning of these terms as hereto.
fore defined.
1T j. not necessary for the prosecu-
ton to prove the commission Of the
deed by direct evidence, that is to say,
hy witnesses who saw il done. The
defendant max be convicted upon cir
cumstantial evidence alone. In this
case there is no direct evidence of guilt,
and the prosecution relies upon circum-
stantial evidence alone. In this case
the circumstances must be established
10 your satisfaction. aud must, when
taken together, satisfy your minds OF
the defendants guilt, beyond a reason
able doubt. II tie prosecution has es-
tablished a chain of circumstances, all
tending 10 show the guilt of the defend
ant, and so linked together as to be in
consistent with any other reasonable
hypothesis than that of guilt, you arc
warranted in returning a verdict OF
guilty. The circumstances relied up
on by the state to establish guilt. must
not only be consistent with each other
and with the hypothesis OF the defend
ants guilt, but they must be inconsist-
ent with any other reasonable hypothe-
sis. If the circumstances are suscep-
tible of 4 satisfactory explanation con-
sistent with the defendants innocence,
you should give the defendant the ben
eft of such explanation.
Evidence has been introduced tend
ing to prove certain acts and declara-
tions of McNutt. You are reminded
that mere confessions. of McNutt, how
ever much they might criminate him,
cannot be taken as evidence against
the defendant Winner. And the same
rule will apply TO the mere naked state
mcnts of other persons. They are
only admissible when it is shown that
there was some concert of action be-
tween the parties; or, in other words,
that they were acting together for the
accomplishment of common design,
It not to be understood that the court
by admitting evidence TO the jury of acts
and declarations Of other persons than
the defendant on trial, decides tina;
they were acting in concert with the
defendant as TO any particular trans.
action. The court only decides that
there is sufficient testimony to author
ize the admission Of proof of such acts
and declarations, and the question Of