New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-17

the facts shoald be consort with tn,
hypothesis, and it is essential, too, tina
the circumstances should be conclusive il
nature aud tendency. Evidence is Away
inconclusive when it raises no more than {
limited probability in favor of the fact, al
compared with some definite probability
against it, whether the precise proposition
can or can not be ascertained. Such evi
dence is always held to be insufficient
where. assuming all to be proved which the
evidence tends to prove, some other by
pothesis may still be true, for it is the actua
exclusion OF every other hypothesis which
| invests mere circumstances with the force
of proof. 1t is essential that the circum
stances should to moral certainty exclude
| every hypothesis but the one proposed tC
be proved.
| Where evidence is not positive and con
elusive, character may be considered, bu,
proof OF good character can avail nothing
In excu!pating party where the evidence
Is positive and the guilt is not doubtful.
Circumstantial evidence is Of nature
! identically the same with direct evidences
the distinction is that by direct evidence is
| intended evidence which applies directly to
| the fact which forms the subject of inquiry
| the fdctnna probandun; circumstantlal ovi
dence is equally direct in it's mature. bur, as
its name imports, it is direct evidence OF
| the minor fact or facts residential to OF
usually connected with some other fact as
| its accident, and from which such other fact
| is therefore inferred.
BY moral certainty is understood that
degree Of assurance which INDUCES man
of sound mind to act without reasonable
doubt upon the conclusions to which it
leads. If evidence leaves reasonable
ground for doubt the conclusion can not
be morally certain, however great may be
the preponderance of probability in it's
favor. If you find that the accused made
confessions under any fear or under threats
or from hopes of reward held out to them
as inducements by persons in authority
such confessions are not binding, but if, on
the contrary, you find they were made
purely Voluntarily, even to those in author
ity, then they constitute strong proof
against the party making them or acquies-
cling therein. In case Of reasonable doubt,
however, it is safe to acguit.
You can appoint your own foreman.
Your verdict must be unanimous; It must
be written on the back of the bill of indict-
ment, and signed by your foreman as such.
You may find the prisoners, or either of
them, guilty in manner and form as charged
upon them in the bill of indictment; or if
you find that q murder has not been COM
mitted, you may find verdict for man.
slaughter. If you find that the accused
killed Mrs. SO.inger without malice pre-
pense. you may find either party guilty, or
both, az the evidence may convince you.
II you find that the proof is insufficient to
establish the positive guilt of the accused,
or insufficient to produce feeling of moral
certainty in your minds as to their guilt,
You should find verdict Of not guilty. II
the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt
in your minds as to the guilt of the accused,
they are entitled to the benefit of it, But
the doubt you entertain mast grow out of
the evidence. or he the result of the insult
ticiency of the evidence actually before
you. Your duty, gentlemen, is momentous.
and trust you will not fail to discharge it
fearlessly, and with an eye single to the
triumph Of justice under the sanctions of
law-tO the protection of society in the
venerati0n of truth and sacred regard for
innocence and life. AS every UNPUBLISHED
crime legally ascertained to have been COM
mitted takes from society that completeness
of protection to which it is reasonably and
justly entitled under the laws, charge you
give effect to the evidence. and efficacy to
the laws.
First District Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Assault-John Early, Bill MCGEE and
John Williams.
SENTENCED.
Larceny-Dan Claiborne, one wear: Ju.
Illus johnson, six months; Charles johnson
one month.
Second District Court.
Succession Of John Youenes opened.
Fourth District Court.
Achille Kalinski VS.. l. N. Marks ct al
Petitioner complains that l. N. Marks,
Washington Marks, John Fitzpatrick and
Anthony SambOla have damaged him to the
amount OF $4,000 in this, that he was en-
ployed by insurance companies in convey.
ing Babcock extinguishers to dwellings,;
that at fire January q, 1875, on First
street, between Willow and Clara, in a
building insured by the Teutonia Insurance
Company, one of his employers, he aud
John Loury, Marcus, Cashen, John Cave
ney, arrived with sundry extinguishers;
that the fire department did not arrive till
afterward. and was unable to work; that
he and his fellows had nearly extinguished
the fire; that they were violating no law,
bat by order of Chief Engineer O'Connor
were arrested and confined on charge of
violating ordinance No. 1910; and that they
were acquitted OF the charge.
That the Firemen's Charitable Associa-
ton is a corporation and defendants are
diretsors; that they combined to break up
his business by resolution ordering the
chief engineer to arrest all persons using
BabcOck extinguishers at fires: that the
resolution was introduced by Washington
Marks; that it was beyond the corporate
powers of the associations; that defendants
endeavored to cause the arrest prior to this,
and prays for the said damages.
Fifth District Court.
G. NJ. Bayley & Pond VS.. Paul Fourchy
and Merchants Mutual Insurance Com
sets forth that plaintiffs
were in business some years prior to May
%, 1874; that on that date their store was
destroyed by fire without their fault; that the
insurance was 300, 900, and that $40, 900 was
insured in defendants company; that from
June i to October 16 defendants malicious.
ly endeavOred to cause the public to believe
plaintiffs claim was fraudulent and affirmed
it at the board of underwriters; that June
% plaintiffs offered to submit the loss
to arbitration; that defendants refused the
offer and concealed it from other compa-
MES; that they appointed two persons them
selves; that the estimate made was unfair,
but they procured its adoption by other
that October l6, they caused to
be published in the Bulletin needless and
libel intended to induce the public
to believe, l. that plaintiffs set fire to their
store; 2. that they had done so eight year,
before; B. that they were not doing legal
business; 4. that they presented exaggerated
claims; s. that they made false statements
)f stocks; 6. that they exaggerated the
amount OF the loss; 7. that they kept false
books, and cheated their customers; g. that |
hey made their gains by adulteraton with |
water, and 9. that they we're engaged in
Illicit practices That in the case of plain !
ifs against the London and Lancashire |
Fire Insurance Company, defendants as
listed the company in presenting false. |
malicious and libellOus answer. Damages |