The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1875-03-18

Peair, then and there, with the intent
and purpose of killing the said Peair.
If you should find the existence Of all
these facts, you should find the prisoner
guilty Of murder in the first degree.
! will further say that if you find that
the prisoner killed the said Peair, by the
administration and effects of poison as
aforesaid, the law implies that the pris-
oner intended and purposed what he ac.
complished-that is, to kill the said
Peair, unless you are satisfied by the
weight of all the testimony in the case
that such was not his purpose. There
being testimony in the case to show that
if he so killed the said Peair, it was not
his purpose to do so, will further say
that should you find that the prisoner 80
killed the said Peair, by poison, before
inferring the purpose to kill, from the act,
and the resulting death, it will be neces-
sary for you to consider all the testimony
in the case, throwing light upon the mat
ter, for the purpose of determining from
it whether the prisoner, in point of fact,
intended to kill.
AS tending to show that the prisoner
did not intend to kill said Peair, you will
consider the testimony of the prison
er that such was not his purpose;
that he did not know that laudanum was
poison, but supposed it was drug, cal
culated only to produce sleep; that he
was ignorant of the strength and effects
of the laudanum; that the act of the pris-
oner in putting the laudanum into the
drink of said Peair, was in the presence
of others not suspected of any completely
in the act, as testified by the prisoner
himself; and other circumstances and tes-
timony in the case having the same bear
ing-especially the testimony tending to
show the general good character and
reputation of the prisoner for peace,
quiet, honesty and inotfensiveness.
On the other side, as tending to show
that the purpose was to kill, you will
consider the fact, if you find it to be a
fact, that the prisoner did in fact kill the
deceased; that the testimony in the case
tending to show that the amount of
laudanum mixed with the drink which
the said Peair swallowed, was about one
ounce, and that previously on the same
day he had attempted to get the said
Peair to drink about the same quantity
of laudanum, and other circumstances in
the case, claimed by counsel for the State,
to show that the purpose was to kill.
If you should find that the motive of
the accused was to rob the deceased Of
his money, and that he administered the
laudanum for the purpose of killing the
deceased, to accomplish that object, such
purpose to kill for that object would sus-
tain the indictment, as to the allegation
of purpose to kill, although the indict-
ment does not charge that the killing
was purposeIy done in the attempt to
perpetrate a robbery.
The indictment charges that the de-
fendant purposely, and of deliberate and
premeditated malice, by administering
laudanum, killed the deceased. This al
legation as to malice need not be proved
by the State. Nor is it necessary that |
should describe what is meant in law by
malice. Suffice it to say that purpose to
kill, by poison, supplies the place Of
malice in cases of murder by poison,
If after considering all the testimony
in the case bearing on that point, you are
that ifthe prisoner did kill said
Peair, as aforesaid, he did not intend or
purpose to kill him, you will find by your
verdict that the defendant is not guilty
of murder in the first degree, as charged
in the Indictment. .. ..
The Indictment charges that the pris-
oner put and mixed one and one-half
ounces of laudanum with the beer, but
it is immaterial except upon the ques-
ton of purpose to kill, what the quantity
Of laudanum was, if the death of Peter
Peair was caused thereby. 1t is also al
legged that said Peair drank one pint of
the poisoned liquid, but, as to the guam
tity, itneed not be proved us laid. 1t is
lmmatGrial what quantity he drank, if
what he did drink caused his death.
will further say that in proving the
cause Of Peair's death, the testimony must
exclude from the minds of the jurors any
fair idea that the death resulted from
any other cause. 1t is not sufficient for
you to be able to say that it is probable
that the Iaudanum given by the prisoner
til, III IL ,,,, Nv
=, oY','io tnHt 'il4C WAS Vue cause '!,3n
o 'o''iG,'1''E G,i o.So, ouv Sou mus oe "pie
10 " ,,, I,i, iioln 'HG ii, 'eS,i'nonl3 llag lqe
,d t', if ,, & "i' 20 ,lV Gnd I"I,o t! y, 'ne uG",
t , :, ,odt ou "l' " " . l,u , ,i9, you "luSI re-
And His insfrncfirn ond tbo rovt ,.,,,
should hear in mind in ron,idar;n,, T." lo
Iuestion Of fhe guiIf or inno'oSon Ill., i'
irrusaJ Sithar Of tba cri l',,o e'ou 9' .'ie
he Gr,f deoree or m9nsia"(,htor ,.'''' Oe' III
1c...,.r'...,7a.tn
- so'12l'ouut 5,I ullu una, tte lau%anum with
,'y l lu9G'c'' , aus, "Qul,' nave killed Pear
!. W4u'u a'ot 'yYall lhe prisoner, hoold
o'.Deol ..Doeol opinion lhat the deceased was
l,' y'ea,g" WIN Ordinary medical skill
by Shou'a you ma, or be OF opinion that
WIN a greater degree OF medical skillm
I'5 treatment, the HE OF Peair might
I'' " = .J- .Dee,i u ~. S4l ,I'l' Gu' d..
II yoI ny. !. tlio PRISONER @9llty OF MUIR
!er l' VllS III :. lrsl oesIee, you sho4Id return
our =, VeI''lc1 81 accoIuIus!y' buC should yon
irlGiO !I Ile s Plls'lier 5 u 'ue charge OF mnr
La Il