New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-02-03


man November IL, 1876, on board the Mary
Annie at Bayou Bridge. Convicted Janu-
airy "A. Sentence OF five years.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 80, 1877.
SENTENCED.
Robbefy--Willie Sanders, robbing Hong
Lou Song, on the levee, in October, 1876, Of
pocketboOk and $25. Convicted January
% Five years.
Encyclopedias Augustin, house of
Nicholas Cournaie, corner of Derbigny
street and Bayou road, November 2, 1876.
Convicted January &C. Seven years.
Burglary-Frank Williams, house of Mrs.
Thomas Malloy, No. ITO TcbOupitoulas
street. Convicted January 90. Ten years.
Carrying concealed weapons-James Lee,
alias Jones, Talbot Morris. Five dollars or
five days.
State vs.. John Garvey and Charles
Earle.-Murder. Killing and robbing Mag
dalena SOllinger, April "a, 1871, at No. GIL
Annunciation street. Indicted April %,
1871. Convicted June %, 1871. Sentence
of death overruled. Convicted June, 1872.
Sentence of imprisonment for life. Case re-
manded. Mistrial February, 1875 Mistrial
January, 1876. Convicted of granddaughter
February %, 1876. Sentence OF twenty
years. Case remanded Last trial com
menced January 90, 1877. Five hundred
talesmen ordered. No witnesses to be had.
Confession of one accused excluded by the
Supreme Court. No evidence against &C.
cused. Verdict of not guilty.
Judge Whitaker rendered the following
charge in the Garvey and Earle case:
Gentlemen Of the jury-You are called
upon to declare by your verdict whether
the accused committed the crime of man
| slaughter upon the body of one Madeline
Solinger, in New Orleans, on the twenty
fourth of April, 1871. The alleged crime is
very grave one, and the responsibility of
your position with reference to the ease is
weighty and solemn. You are judges of the
law and the facts. You have given due at
tention to the testimony of the witnesses
and to the reading of the documentary evil
| dence. The court will now instruct you as
| TO the law applicable to the case, and you
should take the law as given by the court
and apply it to the evidence.
The two main questions to be answered
by your verdict are:
l. Was the crime cOmmitted2
2. If committed, was it by the accused,
or either of themG
The accused we're indicted for the muir
der of Solinger. In February last they
were convicted of manslaughter, and q
| new trial having been ordered by the Su-
preme Court, they are now on trial for the
Ohense Of which they we're found guilty in
| February, although they are tried on the
original indictment charging murder; the
verdict referred to being equivalent to "not
| guilty. as to the graver charge. 1t is un-
| necessary, then, to consider whether one of
the essentials of the crime of murder be
| present in this caee-mRlice afOrethought.
| section l04S Revised Statutes; ! East Pl.
| Or. 2lS; Foster, 800; 5 Cush., Mass. 304).
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of
another without malice either express or
implied; z BOuvier, 100; ! Hale, Pl, CT.
1861. In case situated like this, where
the charge is, in effect, diminished by pre-
viOus verdict, proof of malice will not
| raise the crime to murder, and need not be
considered in making up the verdict.
You will then deliberate, in the light of
the evidence, as to whetherR SOlinger is de-
ceased, aud whether she was unlawfully
killed If she were, then her killing was
felonieus and granddaughter, and you will
proceed to inquire if she were killed by the
accused or either of them.
The court can not touch the evidence.
| The jury alone can pass upon the credible
ity of the witnesses. But the jury should
not be influenced by anything outside of the
evidence actually IN the case admitted by
the court Impressions, no matter of what
| degree, existing upon your minds before
You were empanneled to try this case,
should be utterly discarded by you, and al
lowed to have no influence in your deter
minatiOn. You have no right to permit
yourselves to be affected by anything that
may have appeared on previous trials Of
this case, or by any Endorsements upon the
indictment which you will take to the jury
reOm, showing the result OF the previous
trials. Your minds should be as free from
bias as if the case had never been tried be.
fore, as if you had never known of
its existence before you were sworn
as Jurors to try it. And further charge
you on this head, that you are not to ind
verdict in accordance with any belief Of
innocence or guilt. You are to be guided
solely by your honest convictions after care
fully weighing the evidence actually intro
duced, and with due regard to the courts
instructions as to the law.
In considering the evidence you will dis.
tinguish between that offered as to one, and
that offered as TO the other, and govern
yourselves accordingly in your conclusions
To convict q lperson of crime on circum
stantial evidence is to adiudge him guilty
without direct proof, as of an eye witness
that he committed the crime, but upon evi
denee of facts tending, as circumstances, to
establish the fact of his guilt. I'm some in
stances these circumstances assume the
character of irresistible evidence" ID How
St. TT. 1924.
"The first question ought to be, is the
fact possible. If so, are there any circum
stances which render 1t impOesiblel If the
facts are impossible the witness ought moi
to be credited" ! Stark. Ev. sos.
If the facts, thus sifted, could not exist
without the accused person being guilty al
charged, the jury should lind him guilty
If the jury find that they may be reason
ably accounted for on another hypothesis
than the guilt of the accused, they are MOI
sufficient without the presence of some di
rect evidence to warrant conviction.
Previous good character of the accused
need not be established. As to the presen
accusation the prisoners stand before the
court and in the eye of the law as though
their previous histories had been wholly
without blemish. Previous trials and pre-
vious convictions do not affect this position
preiudicially.
II you entertain reasonable doubt as tt
the guilt of the accused, or either of them
You are bound to return verdict of no
guilty as to the subject or subjects OF sueE
| doubt; but this doubt must be serious-th
conscientious, sensible doubt Of a reason
able mind, existing after due consideration
of the law and the evidence.
The jury will not take into account, il
deciding upon their verdict, the penalty in
posed by the law and to be decreed by tn
court. The responsibility resting upon tn
Jury is confined to the answer to the quel
tion: Are the accused guilty as charged
The court and the executive will see
what remains in case the jury decide th
case against the prisoners.
Gentlemen, the case is with yOu. ID
your duty to the State and to the accused
without prejudice toward either, and unde
the solemn sanction of your Oaths.
} WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 81, 1877.
sEFTENCED.
: Burglary and Grand Lareeny--Dick Rol
! inson and Henry JiRks, charged with bu
! glary, ct the warehouse of MT. Z. J, III