The Lake County star. [volume] (Chase, Mich.) 1873-current, 1878-01-03
BALDWIN, MICH, THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 1873

from the Town Board, and othel
ansunts, before this Sd day of April
'.6; and that Mr.. North had not per.
formed any services other than stated
In this memoranda. Mr.. North, und,i
this information, cannot be convicted
Of unlawfully receiving this $50, be.
cause the cause OH the part of the pco-
pie has proceeded upon the $32 item;
but this evidence Is put into the case
for the purpose OF bearing on his good
faith in receiving this S32 item, and as
| matter of cross-examination.
| The defendant claims he did not
know that he was receiving this
amount unlawfully. This presents the
| questi0n-hew far ignorance Of the law
will excuse.
1t is a general rule that ignorance Of
law is no excuse. This may work hard
ship I'm some cases; but on the other
hand, II such was not the rule, 1t would
be II great shield or hi'ling place behind
which erH disposed persons might try
to conceal themselves and compel the
jury TO enter into an inquiry as to his
mental condition or kn0,Otettye of the de-
feTdant, as the rule of law in issue.
This would present an issue very diff
cult of solution, and make the law va
= y
mans knowledge of the law as ascsr-
tanned by the jury, which would net be
allowable.
There Is q class of cases where the
net may be criminal or not criminal,
according to the intent with which the
net is committed. That is, 1t naay be a
trespass, or u crime, as the intent may
be, but where the law says II u certain
bet is done it will be misdemeansr,
then, If the particular act Is done, or
committed, the law presumes guilt in-
tent, and when the particular act Is
done which the law prohibits, then
such act is q crime.
If the defendant demanded and re-
ceived these illegal fees, then he is gull
J.
In considering this question you can
and should take into consideration the
statement Of the accused. You can
believe this In preference to sworn tes-
timony, IL you think il entitled to cred
it; and If you believe any portion Of it,
you should give Ii its due influence I'm
making up your verdict. But he says
hereceivsd the money and presented
tile claim.
{ The question has been raised on the
argument that this trial il expensive.
j hardly think this proper subject of
inquiry ut your hands.
! The People ought not to bc taken to
task for the reasonable expenses Of q
criminal trial. Sometimes the cheap
est enforcement of tile law, SO far as
dollars and cents are concerned, may
Le the dearest in the end.
Gentlemen, these questions of fact
are for you. The trial Judge is not au-
tliOrized In impressing upon your
minds his views Of the facts. You are
responsible for these matters, and may
take this cause, and consider of the is
sues involved, and render your verdict
accordingly.
1t IL rule Of law that you must be
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused.
You are expected to do justice both
by the People and tho accused.
The case ought to he tried upon the
evidence, and not upon any question Of
prejudice for or against tile accused.
Tie Court would be direlict In its duty,
II II allowed cause to he decided upon
any grounds of prejudice. The Court,
or any Of the officers connected with
this prosecution, must treat the accused
with judicial fairness. No advantage
ought to he taken of the accused, Oh
account of his supposed poverty nor,
on the other hand, na,est Mis supposed
porerty ercuse him from actual crime.
The question of punishment Is not
with you. 1t Is left In other hands by
the law. The question of guilt or In
Rocence Is the question for you.
After the jury had returned ver-
dict of guilty, S. ID. Haight, Esq, On
behalf Of the People, asked to have a
note proseg,i entered in the other
charge against Mr.. North for demand
ing and receiving SEQ, as treasurer, for
n purpose not authorized by law; stat
ing to the Court that the object of these
trials was not persecution. And the
law having been vindicatetl in the con-
viction of Mr. North, OH one charge,
he did not wish to put the county to
the expense of "a trial on the other.
The motion was granted.
AS we are closing up forms, this
(Thursday) afternoon, wo learn that
James B. Taylor has been convicted;
the jury remaining out only short
time. The main charge in his case
was for letting the notorious $40 jobs
to his sons-in-law, Chick and Ross.
We hope ts be able to give further par
ticulars next week.
A jury has been empaneled in the
ease of VIM. Wood and G. M. &. Ross,
md Court adjourned till 10 a. M, to-
morrow friday.
The prosecution is admirably con-
iucted by White & Haight, of Luding-
Haight being present.