Wilmington daily commercial., 1874-11-25
The Taylor Trial.

CONCLUDING SPEECH BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
New CASTLE, Nov. 25.
The closing speech WAS made by Attorney
General Pennington, who first stated the manner
in which the prisoner stands indicted and con-
tinued 1t ia proper for me to say that under
this indictment he may be convicted of murder
of the first degree, or he may be acquitted as he
stands indicted and convicted of murder Of the
second degree, or he may not be convicted of
murder of either degree, but Of man slaughter.
But if you should be satisfied, after a careful
and full consideration of all the evidence and
applying it to the law as | shall give it to you,
that it is not proven sufficiently and beyond a
reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder of
either degreee or of man slaughter, your verdict
should be one of acquital, these being the only
offences for which he can be convicted under
this Indictment.
The case, gentlemen, is OF great Importance,
as we'll to the community as to the prisoner at
the bar. The object of the criminal law is not
merely to punish those who violate it, but for the
protection Of society. Its pains and penalties
therefore held out to others, as beacons of warn
ing to deter them from the commission Of like
offenses. 1t is of course important to the pris-
oner at the bar because his life is involved in
and hangs upon it's issue. You hear the evil
dence as given to you by the witnesses and 1
shall endeavor to give you the law applicable to
the case, as clearly and as briefly IS l am able,
and it will then be your duty to apply it to the
evidence, and upon the law as you will hear it
from the Court and evidence as given to
you by the witnesses, and otherwise.
and thus determine the guilt or innocence of the
prisoner at the bar without considering what
may be the consequence to him, your duty being
simply to find the fact of guilt or innocence.
The Attorney General then re-stated the evi-
dence, tracing the journey of the two men from
their meeting at Newark to the arrest OF the
prisoner in Ohio, and continued Gentleman, l
have not repeated all the evidence and if
have not correctly stated such portions as
have referred to, you will correct me. My
object in referring to it at all is merely
to direct your attention to the proper line of your
investigation, and have therefore only CLAN eed
over the outlines, leaving it entirely for you to
judge of the evidence, and not only as to what
has been proved but of weight and credit which
you will give to it. This your exclusive province
and have no disposition to invade it.
In considering the evidence, if it is conflicting,
you should reconcile all the conflicting elements,
if you can, so as to harmonize it all ; but if it
should be 30 conflicting as to be irreconcilable
you must give credit to that portion which you
may believe to be most entitled to it, and sub
ject such as you may think the least worthy of
credit.
We come now to notice more particularly the
crime with which the prisoner at the bar ID
charged for the indictment and the case applica-
BILE to it. The Indictment charges that the pris-
oner at the bar, on the 28th OF July last, with
express malice aforethought, cast, threw, and
pushed r. A. Mackey into Drawers creek, in
St. Georges Hundred, IN which creek
there was great quantity of water.
and that by reason of such casting
throwing and pushing of the deceased, Robert
A. Mackev into the creek aforesaid, was then
and there choked, suffocated and drowned, of
which said choking, suffocating and drowning,
he, the said Robert A. Mackey, instantly died,
this indictment alleges to be murder of the first
degree. The prisoner at the bar, through his
counsel, denies these allegations and insists that
there is no proof of the corpus
deficit that there is no evidence that
Mackey was cast, thrown and pushed
into the creek by the prisoner at the bar,
that they further insist that there is no evidence
whatever that Mackey came to his death by
choking, suffocaton, and drowning. These
facts must be established by the evidence to the
satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable
doubt The evidence may be direct, or circum
stantial, or presumptve. This case rests en-
tirely on presumptive evidence, and you must
draw your conclu ion from all the facts and cir
cumstances which are in evidence to you.
The Attorney General then went on to state
the law applicable to the. lease, and here our re-
port breaks off.