The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1877-03-02

OF Justice Isolated cases of mistaken ver-
diets should have no other effect than to
make us cautious and deliberate in our con.
clusions
have not attempted to review the great
volume of facts in this ca 90. but have con-
tented myself with reference to the promi-
nent points and the general principles of
law AMI rules of evi lence applicable to the
case. Io what have said it has be- n my
endeavor to avoid indicating an opinion in
regard to the facts, intending to leave them
entirely for the sidsratiOn of the jury. j
believe have already instructed you fully
upon all the points of law, but in case 40
important IA this feir.ng that something
might be omitted which ought to be brought
t. your notice, proceeded to answer the
points presented by the counsel for the pris
oner9, reading to you and answering each
pjint separately:
First. Patrick Hester, one of the defen-
dints in this Gaze, under he testimony of
the witnesses IL upon hs trial charged a. an
accessory bef,re the fact, and he IL not
cntrt'l " pr,ve to b,oie IT tho3. who
lnalcte tie a'tI lnjlrie. ron whicr R'a
died
Il is c,rrs;tly .ttt,l in lhjs p,irt that
the te.ti.nJIy pf the witna8'e, chnrga Pat.
rick Hester aI a. accessory, but tr Is clarG-
Ell IN tbs inltctnaIt aS principal ia accur-
dance with the pr,vt,i,n, If the Statue.
Second. Ii the jnry believe that Drnirl
Kelly anl his cpnptlibr., It he pal any.
shot and killed Alex tnder w. R"i, that
does not prove anv criminal act on the part
| OF Patrick Hester, ons OF tha dhftnltlts
| here; and unless the commonwealth has
| established by g, III an su,li :ient evidence
| beyond re sonabe doubt that Patrick
| Hester, one OF the defendants, procured.
connived, advised, aided an abetted the
killing of Rea by Daniel Kelly aud others,
| Patrick Hester must be acquitted.
| This is correct.
| Third. That Daniel Kslly is an accom-
/ plice in the killing OF Alexander w. Rea,
| and ~ such accompice is regarded as an IN
famous witness. AMI the jIry would not be
| justified ia finding "A verdict against Patrick
Hester, Patrick Tally, aud Peter WsHugh,
or any or either Of them, upon the tpstmD
| ny Of Dtliel K-lly u'ilrsl his teStim Diy j.
| confirmed in such mttertat parts ~ con-
meet the dti-niant1 with the killing OF k-a
| by the testimony nf trt7;worthy witn-,--,
We have affirmed the doctrine uf this
point in the gon"ral chlrgi, and now again
we say it j. correct
Fourth Trlt tho nfirmatipn of the tes
timony of DunieI X lily. an accnmpice, III
such subordinate matter, atone rs may be
|
the Innocence of the defend ints, is not such
a confirmation of Kelly as will Justify the
jury in rendering verdict against them.
| | have already said that the cOrrobrra
tiun required by the rules Of practice shall
| be to some material matter connecting the
prisoner with the crime and | repeat IL AS
an answer to this point. But it is not nee
essary that the corroboration shall be by
direct testimony. 1t may be by such cir
cumstance. as satisfy the jury OF the fact.
Fifth. That there are no witnesses in this
case who have testified to any facts that
connect Patrick Hester, Patrick Tally, or
Peter McHuth, the defendants, or any or
either of then. with the killing OF Rea, ex-
cept Daniel Kelly; and all the other facts
testified to by other witnesses are a. consis-
tent with the innocence OF each and every
one OF the defendants as with their gull
decline to answer this point as request
ed. Whether the testimony of other wit
nesses besides Daniel Kelly is consi tent
| with the guilt or innocence is for the jury
and not for the court to determine.
Sixth. That no fact or circumstance in
relation to the killing of Rea, detailed by
Daniel Kelly, and unsupported by other
trustworthy witnesses would justify the jury
in bringing in a verdict against either Pat
rick Hester, Patrick Tully, or Peter Nc.
Hugh, and that no Independent testimony
in this case does connect either Tully or
Mcllugh with the killing of Rea.
This is also a question for the jury. The
force of the facts and circumstances is fol
the consideration of the jury. decline to
} charge az requested on this point.
Seventh That if the jury believe the ties
mony ot Patrick Fahey, Luke Richardson
Jonn Britt, Dennis Mel shlin, Peter )
| I.1p lap / tbot
ny of Daniel Kelly on the material part OF
the case is entirely overlhrown, and there
can he no conviction of Patrick Hester il
this case.
t l have already submitted the evidence Of
the alibi set up as to the transaction on the
10th of October at Donohue's saloon to tn,
jury with what deem proper instructions
; aud decline to charge as requested on this
poiut.
Eighth. That Daniel Kelly stands before
this jury as man of most infamous char
acter-guilty on his own confession of the
, murder of Alexander W. Rea of the rob
e berry on the highway OF Mr. Abel White
e of various larcenies in the counties Of Lu
zerne, Northumberland aud Schuylkill, anC
\ Of assaults and beatings convicted in tn,
. court of Schuylkill county of robbery OF
the highway, and pardoned 50 AS to lie useC
= as witness in this case proved to hav,
9 attempted the subornatiou OF perjury anC
/ to have asserted that he did not regard tn.
I obligation OF an oath; shown to have contra
[ dicted himself in various material part
a | OF his testimony in this case; cOntraiicteC
!. in other portions by Micnael Graham
5 John Cannon, Garner Pepper, Con- O'Gar
i rsgh, Mrs. DIoley, Mrs. Farley, Ellen H.
!. ter, Patrick Fahev, Luke Richardson, J OH
n Britt, Dennis Mclaughlin, Peter $. Luby
: Thomas Casey and Francis Karnan; an,
impractical in character for truth and yer
n acity by more than twenty five persons, an,
g as such is entirely unworthy of belief b.
!. this jury.
!. | have called your attention to the fact
!. recited in this point and now direct yol
a. to consider taem, but decline To charge a
n a matter of law that Daniel Kelly is un
|. worthy of belief. That Is Il question for tn
4 jury.
a Ninth | hat ii the jury find from tn
If evidence that Daniel Kelly has wiIlull
"a misrepresented any material facts in giyin
% his testimony, then the rule of law is tha
4. if he will ialsify in one thing he will faisf
!. in all things, and the jury should disregar
" and reject all he has testified AS unworth
/; OF belief
afl This is correct
Il Tenth. That if the jury believe that Pat
l. rick Hester, Patrick Fully and Peter NJ
4 Hugh, Ur either of them. were initiate in
10 to or belonged to a society known is tn
ID Ancient Order Of ii5ernans, or "AIolli
c. Magulres," that not is of itself sufficient
r convict them of any Oiiense against the laH
II of the country.
he This Is correct, Whatever may be III
r character of the "Mollie Maluirc" societ
L. when member Of it is accused Of crime h
is entitled to the humane presumption ofla,
as AS 70 his innocence. The burden of pro.
4 is upon the commonwealth u estq5lish tn
Up specific otiense alleged in the indictment.
e. Eleventh. The the confirmation of DAME
lie Kelly, an accompice, on immalerial point,
s. or on points which do not connect the d,