The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1874-03-19

Il
Witness here described at length the position
Of the kitchen, cupboard stove, gun, ramrod, |
&C., Sometimes carried my gun much /
half mile. Did not keep ramrod in gun on /
account OF the additional weight. Never bought |
any ammunition in Jackson except powder |
and caps. Got the powder from Dyer the week |
before the killing of the boy. Sent for it by |
Ella THE whole ground of the examination |
in chief was here gone over, but nothing new
or contradictory elicited-) am sure was
not out at the stable before Clark was there.
Nv impression is that was not. After Clark 4
was there Ella shelled the corn. Ella told me
that the door needed hiking. Have no reeollec.
ton myself of going to the stable door.
IIAJfeTHooH.-AIrs. Tilton again OH the witness
stand. think left the gun at the front door
when shot at the dog. Took it into the kitch-
en- Saturday evening. Martin Ryan had brought
me some turnips Saturday evening, and he had
gone befsre Mrs. Hayth came. / took the gun
into the kitchen while Mrs. Hayth was there,
or after she had left. Sure left it in the hall
when got in from shooting at the dog. Think
my memory is not as it has been. This case has
not given me any trouble but persons annoyed
me very much coming about the Jail soon after
L was imprisoned.
Re examined. occupied the kitchen the
evening Mrs. Hayth visited me.
The defense here rested.
Rebutting testimony. William Aleshire. Saw
no apples in the orchard when was there the
day after the boy was killed.
William Thompson. Tells about going to the
ground With SAM. Hayth, Welsh, DR.. Boggess
and others, Thanksgiving Day.
Frank Moore. l am acquainted with William
DuHadway. Do not know where William Du-
Halfway was on that Monday. Nj. Tripp asked
witness if he (witnesSl was up there in the
woods back of the orchard that day. Witness
answered that he was. He was asked at what
hour he was there. Objection raised by Col.
Moore. Objection sustained.
The argument for the State was opened by
James Tripp, who spoke over two hours. Irvine
DUNCAN opened the argument for the defense,
and spoke an hour and half, when Court ad-
journed.
Mr. DUNCAN continued his argument and
occupied again an hStr and a half, and was fol-
lowed by DR.. Laird, Who spoke over an hour
| and half Col. Moore made the closing argu-
ment for the defense, occupying overfour hours
| and half At ten minutes past five o'clock
J. L. Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, commenced
the closing argument In the case, and closed at
fifteen minutes before eight, when Judge Har-
per gave the follow Inc charge to the Jury:
Gentlemen Of the Jury: You have, during thu
long and tedious progress of this trial. now ap-
preaching its close, been patient and attentive.
You have carefully listened to the testimony of
the witnesses, and the able and thorough argu-
ments of counsel, and have no doubt, that
when $ch retifs is cohshlt as to Sotir verdict
| you will do so thoroughly impressed with the
| importance of the case, and of the great respon-
sibility resting upon you. The charge made
against the defendent is that of murder in the
first degree, the highest crime known to the
law, and the penalty for the commission of
| which is deeth: Nilh tla penalt5 affixed by
| the law for this crime, neither the Court, nor
| the jury, have anything to do whatever. We
are not acting as Legislators. We are placed
here to administer the law, and it is our duty to
take it as we find it. More specifically then
the charge is, that in this county, on the oath
day of November, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight htindted and Seventy three the
defendant at the bar, Anna e. TiIton, l,urposely,
and of her deliberate and a)reIaeditdted malice
| did kill and murder, one William Franklin
Johnson, by shooting him with a gun. To this
charge the defendant has entered her plea of
not guilty, and this makes the issue that you
ale to try, and upon which you are to render
true verdict arcoftiing to Inc evidence, so help
you God. Upon the trial of this issue the bur-
den of proof is upon the State. The defendant
is not required to prove that she is innocent.
| The law preSitH1es that she is innocent, and she
has the right to rely upon this legal presump-
ton in her favor, until her guilt is established
| by evidence. In determining this issue it is
your duty to be guided alone by the evidence
introduced OH the trial; to lay aside all that
you may hate heard or read about the case, be-
fore you were sworn as jurors to try it, You
are not to be influenced in your deliberations,
by any outside feeling, prejudice or clamor if
any such exists, either for against the ac-
| cused.
| Evidence is of two kinds. Positive or direct,
and circumstantial. Positive or direct evidence
is where witnesses swear to having seen the
| act charged, committed, or the main fact or
matter in dispute, or controversy. Circum-
| stantial evidence is where they swear to acts
| or conduct, of the accused, TO facts and c1rcum-
stances from which the jury may infer, or de-
duce the guilt or innocence of the accused, or
the main fact matter in dispute or contro-
| versy. Circumstantial evidence is admissible
| in all cases. both civil and criminal but is
more frequently resorted to in criminal cases,
| upon the ground of necessity. In cases of muir
der, and other high crimes which are usually
| committed in secret, it is frequently the only
| evidence which can be adduced to Prove the
| commission of the crime. The safety of life
and property requires, and the law has well
| provided, that circumstantial evidence alone,
shall, when sufficient justify a conviction,
! even in capital cases. 1t is laid down in the
law of evidence that i'll prosecutions for crimes
| this kind OF evidence will often be the most
| satisfactory and convincing that can be pro-
duced, and this is the opinion of all eminent
lawyers and jurists. 1t is for the jury to deter
mine what facts and circumstances have been
proven, and to determine upon the precise
force and effect of the circumstances proved,
and whether they are sufficiently satisfactory
and convincing to warrant them in finding the
main fact in issue to be true. In order to
convict upon circumstantial evidence, it should
be such to produce the same degree of cer-
| tainty required from direct testimony, and to
exclude rational probability of Innocence
The circumstances ought to be of such nature
as not to be reasonably accounted for on the
supposition of innocence of the accused, but
perfectly reccnc a lie with the surposition of
the guilt of the accused.
| Several children of tender years have been
| placed upon the stand as witnesses, and have
| given their testimony before you, They are
competent aUneSSeS the Ueight and credibiLity of
their evidence is for the jury to determine. In
many cases, undoubtedly, the statements OF
children are to be received with great caution !;
but it is clear that prisoner may be legally
convicted upon such evidence alone and
supported and whether the account of child
requires to be corroborated in any part, or to
what extent, is question exclusively for the
jury, TO be determined by them on review of
all the circumstances of the case, and especial
ly of the manner in which the evidence of the
child has been given. Independently of the
sanction of an oath, the testimony of children,
after they have been subjected to cross exami-
nation, is often entitled to as much credit as
that of grown persons. What is wanted in the
perfection of the intellectual faculties, is
times more than compensated by the absence of
1OtiUes to deceiUe. The general rule is that wit
nesses are truthful, and it is the duty of the jury
to reconcile all contradictions, if any there be,