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

Edward Schaefler testified that he saw him
driving away from Centrslia at twenty
minutes past nine,and Samuel Richards saw
him at fifteen minutes past nine on the streets
of Centralia in his buggy.
On Sunday morning early his body was
found by Daniel Buchanan, as he testified,
on the right hand side of the road leading
from Centralia to Mount Car,nel, not lar
from place known as the "W alter Barrel"
in clear spot with brush all around 1t and
path leading to it. The body was found
lying upon its back, face up
DIR. +. l. Betterly, who made post NOR
TEN examination, testified to six pis'ol'shot
wounds about the body and head, five Of
which, in his opinion were mortal One
wound ia the face, three in ily body, appar.
emily fred from the front, one in the neck,
and one at the base of the skull behind The
ear.
Justice Kealy, who acted as copcnar, also
testified to the six wounds on The body. No
watch or money, except few coP,'er coins,
were found on the body.
Without recurring to any other evidence
you will no doubt be satisfied that Alexander
w. Rea was murdered. Although conceded,
it is nevertheless for you to tiad from the
evidence. In regard to the time when he
was killed the conmouwoa ltn has igiroduced
testimony las before mentoned,aa 10 the time
when deceased was seen NJ Centralia, also as
to the distance from Cent Tia to ma "Water
Bsrrel"-about mile ant y half and also
that several men we're sleh near 10 water
Barrel" short time bet1 - deceased proba.
bly, reached that point, sume tiL!e between
nine and ten o'clock in tho morning.
On the subject of seeing men by the side
Of the road, VIM. II. Shnman testified that
he was driving slowly on that road that morn
ing and was passed by Lafayette Fetterman
who was in a buggy that hs saw man
come ou Of the woods, look Wy the road and
20 back. Lafaye ette FettermAui testified that
he passed over the road, reaGn,ng the "Wa-
ter BarreW about nine o'clock that when
he was about quarter Of nite han that
point he saw four or five men on the right
hand side Of the road, who disappeared in
the brush as he drove up.
The theory Of the commonwealth il that
these men were lying iD wait Tor The de-
ceased, expecting him to pass over the road
Oh his way to the Goal Ridge coliiery with u
large amount Of money, and that they
stopped himon the road aud robbed and killed
him. You will probably have no difficulty
in coming to the conclusion under the evil
dence that such were the facts independent
of the testimony OF DanielKeIly, who admits
that he was an accompli,e OF the muiderers
Whether the prisoners or either Of them
were present at the homicide, or advised
eled or abetted those who acted as
principals, is the great question in the case
for your determination. The law presamet
a man to be innocent until the contrary il
proved, or appears from stronger presump
ton. This presumption isgrounded on rea'
son, justice and humanity, and must pre-
vail until It is destroyed by an overpowering
evidence Of guilt. At every stage of your
inquiries you must give to these defendants
the benefit Of the presumption until guilt
is clearly established, and also the benefit Of
any reasonable doubt.
Evidence is that which convinees the mind
Of the truth Of proposition. 1t may con-
sist of direct and positive testimony of q
fact or of body Of facts so connected and
linked together as to produce as 6rm be-
lief of the main fact sought to be established
az the most precise detail embodied in direc
testimony. In this case the commonwealth
has given direct and positive testimony b,
the oath of an oocomplice, that Peter Nc
Hugh and Patrick Tully were present at anc
assisted in the murder Of Mr.. Rea, and tina
Patrick Hester devised the plot and furnish
ed in part the means for it's execution. 1t il
also claimed that the testimony Of the &C
complice is corroborated BY facts and cir
cumstances which entitle his testimony t,
belief. On the ground of public policy ant
of necessity, from its being scarcely possibl
to detect conspiracies and other great crime
without their information, the evidence q
| lbCCOu1pltCSb hbb bCSh authbtsCN
They are competent witnesses, but th
practice lhas been long settled tina
no conviction should be had upon the un
supported testimony of an aecomplioe. j
fact his testimony ought always to be receive
with great Jealousy and caution, for upo
his own confession he stands cOntamiuate
with guilt. He admits participation in tn
crime which by his evidence he would e
upon the prisoners. His character 10 tainte
and he may have strong and unadmitted me
, tives to deceive. The testimony Of an az
eomplice before it is accepted as true shoul
be corroborated by unimpeachable testimop
in some material par. which affects each il
dividuai prisoner on trial, and connects hil
with the crime.
This confirmation may be either by dire,
testimony or by such chain Of circumstance
, as clearly tend to support the testimony
, the acconplice. Confirmation merely as
7 the circumstances Of the felony Is not col
. frmation az all. His narrative of VIII
4 transpired at the tune of the commission
: the oGense, and of the part which he took
It and how it was accomplished, may be tr'
= without involving the prisoners in any sha
l., OF the ohense, but it is not necessary that
r aceomplice should be corroborated as to {
II material facts. II he is corrobora,ed in al
y OF the material facts as TO the participants
}. Of the prisoners, more is net required, and
v he IL thus confirmed, and If the jury belle
g his testimony they may act upon it. Wheth
,c he is 50 confirmed by the evidence is qu,
st ton which the jury are 10 determine, G,
D. roboration as to one OF the prisoners is 4
r. corroborstion as TO the Others. Some &C
,e tirmatory evidence must be given that
Of accomp ice speaks the truth an to all, 9th
a, wise the corroboiation cannot be consider
er as extending to all, but only to the ODE
as more to whom 1t applies.