The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-12-18
ey, my bundle, and all I had" 81 an'

PROOF, ana WIhN weight lne ,ldCtS TSSldDr
lished BY it are entitled to, as ! have
stated considering the dread and awful
in which, it is claimed, by the
States these words were uttered, if they
were uttered, by the man. Just about pass
ing oyer the confines of time, and enter
ing eternity.
Will now call your attention to still
anoth& class Of evidence introduced on
the part Of the State for the purpose Of
proving GRe guilt of the accused. Imean
and confessions, which are
claimed to have been made by him, ac-
knowledging his.guilt 1t is claimed by
the State that the proof shows, that the
accused whilst in the lookup at Alliance,
on the day following the day of the hom-
icide, voluntarily stated, substantially, to
one witness, editor and publisher of a
newspaper at Alliance, on being told that
the person accused with him of the crime,
accused him, Ohr, of being the one that
did the deed:
at is true; did it. We had both
agreed to kill the old man, but when the
time came, he, Mann, weakened, and I
finished him." And when told that this
was a very grave affair and he should be
careful what he said, he added "I real
ize the situation and am prepared for the
worst" that on the evening of the day
of the homicide, also in the lookup at
Alliance the accused voluntarily stated,
substantially, to another witness, officer
Berlin, in the prison with him:
"I wish you would take those people
away from the window. They need not
be tormenting the other man" (the ac-
Cused Mann, who was also in the prison)..
C. did the deed and killed the old man.
After / struck the first and second lick,
Tor second and third lick,) the other fell
low, Mann, wilted, and damn it, fin
ished him-fnished the job" thaton the.
afternoon of the same day, day the hom-
icide, before the death of the deceased,
Whattmaugh, was known, officer Kings
bury made complaint on oath before May,
or Day ofAlliance charging Ohrand Mann
with feloniously assaulting, beating and
wounding the deCeasd, with intent to
purposely and of deliberatemalice to kill
and murder him; and that upona,bearing
before the Mayor, at the lookup at ALI
ance the complaint was read to the de-
fendant by the Mayor, he pleaded guilty
of the charge and said he was guilty. Ra.
It is for the jury to determine what the
proof is in this respect, and what weight
is to be given to the facts established by
it, the same as to all the other facts es-
tablished by the proof in the case. /
should, however, state as specially re-
quested by counsel for defendant, that
evidence of confessions should be re-
ceived with great caution, as there may
be danger that the witnesses detailing
the same, may substitute words If their
own, for others used by the prisoner, of
different import, and changing or quRli-
flying the sense of his utteranGe the ciY-
cunstances under which they were ut
tered or made should also be carefully
scrutinized to ascertain whether they
were really voluntary confessions, or
made through inducements held out, or
whether they were obtained through Au-
ress or fear; because confessions, if they
were so made or obtained, are not to be
considered as testimony at all in the case;
and in weighing the evidence of such
confessions the jury should also carefully
consider whether the witnesses detailing
the confessions had good opportunity to
hear and understand what was said, and
paid dattention to the same at the time, and
did hear and understand what was said,
and carefully kept the same in their mind
and memory, and are able to, and do now
accurately detail the same. In these re-
spects evidence of this characteris is often
subject to great infrmity, and must be
received and weighed with great caution;
but where the witnesses had a good op-
portunity to hear and understand the ut
terances and paid attention to the same
at the time, and they made an impression
on their minds, ahd they remember the
same, or when fresh, made a written
memorandum of the same, and their
statements are credible and credited by
the jury, such confessions are entitled to
great consideration and weight and fur
nish proof of more satisfactory and con-
vincing nature to the enquiring mind,
than most other kinds of evidence.
On the part of the defence, evidence
was introduced, which, it claims, shows
that the accused Ohr, before he left the
domicile of his mother and step-father
in Chicago, in the month Of August, 1878,
was a boy of good character and reputa-
ton for peace and quiet OF course evil
dence of good character is always to be
considered in connection with all the
other facts in the case; and the weight to
be given to it is a matter to be deter
mened in the sound discretion of the
jury. 1t is, however, evident that such
evidence must be less satisfactory than it
would be if it extended to near the time
of the homicide. In the interval, it is
possible, great changes may have been
effected in the character Of the young
man, when left to himself in his wander
ings over the country, and amid new as
soCiations and influences, in want, and
exposed to temptations Of all kinds.
The Court was also requested to state,
on the part of the defendant, that in de-
termining the intent and purpose of the
defendant in committing the homicide,
the jury should consider the youth of the
accused, as tending to rebut the purpose
to kill. OF course the jury may take into
consideration the youth of the accused,
in connection with all the other facts and
circumstances Of the case, and dete mine
what bearing it may have to show on his
part, the absence of intent and purpose
to kill. Whilst doing so, the jury, how
ever, will bear in mind, that the accused
had arrived at such age and maturity Of
reason, of which, however, you are the
Judges and will determine from the
testimony and appearance of the party,
who is claimed by his counsel to be now
in his seventeenth year and (as you may
infer from his appearanCe) is stout and
robust for that age, he must be held re-
sponsible to the same degree as an adult
person for his acts. His youth can nei-
ther qualify nor reduce his responsibility
for crime he may have committed. r1-si
l conclude this review of the crimina-
tive as well as the exculpatory evidence
in the case. as claimed by the respective