Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-17

where he knows that persons are constantly
 passing and requesting, with like result
 These are instances of implied malice, ana
 are perhaps sufficient for our present purpose;
 for,ws are dealing with case of murder by poison and by lying in wait. The charge is
 that the accused willfully, deliberately and with malice aforethought administered the oxide of arsenic to the deceased, Mary F. Stannard, and then cut her throat, with the specific intent to take her life; and that death resulted from such administration and use of the knife. If all this be true, and the pub lie prosecutor must prove 1t true beyond all reasonable doubt, it would seem to follow that murder was committed in the first degree. But this is question of fact for the jury to determine and the statute, which has been
 read in your hearing, requires that if you shall find the accused guilty, you shall state by your verdict what degree of crime he has committed; if the first degree of murder, you
 will state when inquired of by the clerk, ssGuilty of murder in the first degree" In this connection it should be stated that by another statute it is provided no person shall be convicted of murder in the first degree without the testimony of two witnesses at Ieast or what is equivalent thereto, viz. Stat-
 utes Title 20, chapter 13, part 5, section $, scNo person shall be convicted of crime, pun ishable by death, without the testimony of at least two witnesses, or that which is equiya- lent thereto"
 By the ancient common law, one witness was sufficient to convict any person of any crime. provided the witness satisfied the jury beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. But this statute changed the common law in this regard, so far as cap ital cases were concerned. The danger of mistake in suffering such extreme cases to be proved solely by one witness, however hon est he might be, however entitled to credit he might be, however calculated his testimony kbo f, halfava hau0T,6 all reasonable doubt that the accused commit ted crime, caused the Legislature to declare that in cases punishable with death, no person shall be convicted without the testimony of two witnesses at least, or that which is equivalent thereto. But this requirement does not extend to murder in the second de- gree. Therefore in given case, if the jury should be fully satisfied that murder has been committed under circumstances containing all the elements of murder in the first degree, still, if the evidence against the accused does not come from two or more witnesses, or from what is equivalent thereto, the jury cannot find the party guilty of murder In the first de- gree, but should find him guilty of murder in
 the second degree. But it is not necessary that there should be two witnesses or more to
 each and every fact constituting the crime in
 order for the jury to find party guilty of
 murder in the first degree. If there are two
 or more witnesses. each testifying to different
 
 facts and circumstances concerning the case
 and tending directly to show the guilt of the
 party accused, it may be regarded as 8 sufi-
 cient compliance with the statute, although
 there may not be two witnesses to any one fact or circumstance. Such is the law appi- cable to all cases of murder.
 We will now briefly consider the case we have in hand. In all cases of crime, one grand division Is to be made in the investiga- tion of each particular case. We are first to consider whether the crime charged in the indictment or information has been commit ted at all-has been committed by anybody. If not, then we need go nofurther in the inves- tigation of the case. For if the crime was not committed at all, much less has the accused committed it, and there should be a verdict of acquittal But if the crime was committed, then, secondly, was the accused the person bound to prove the affirmative of each of
 these propositions beyond ali reasonable | doubt. First, then, was the crime charged | in the case before you committed by any body? The affirmative of this question is
 virtually conceded by the accused. The character of the wounds inflicted upon the deceased proves conclusively, it is said, that | they were not the work of suicide. The ! wound on the top and right side of the head, which was sufficiently severe to cut through the bonnet of the deceased and penetrate nearly to the skull, could not, it is said, have bsen self Inflicted. Neither could the wound l in the neck have been made by the deceased, the claim is, without leaving the instrument | of death in the vicinity of the homicide. And no such instrument was found there, although | the most careful and diligent search has been l made by many persons from that time to the present. That wound, the claim is, must have been made when the deceased was neal
 the borders of death-when life was fast eb | ping out-when the pulsation of the heart had nearly ceased, for the blood upon the gar ments of the deceased and the surrounding | ground shows conclusively, it is said, how | feeble was the action of the heart at the time | That wound, the claim is, was made by an as- | sassin in order to make sure work of his vic | tim that it was made in haste that the oth- | CT deadly agencies which had been employed were found to be too slow in their operation the assassin became desperate delay was | dangerous, and hence this last act in the
 tragedy prompted by the fears of
 delay, and the horror of discovery l Gentlemen, you will determine the first ques l tion in the case. If the deceased died by hel own hand, then you will return verdict .oi l acquittal for no crime was committed by any | body. But if the crime charged in the indict ment was committed by some one, then the second and all important inquiry is, was the l prisoner at the bar the one who committed the | crime The evidence in which the public prose ! cutor asks you to believe, beyond reasona- l ble doubt, that the accused committed the | grave otfense, is of 8 circumstantial character | It is this class of evidence which must usually l be relied upon to prove parties guilty of the 1 highest and greatest transgression of the law. | Crime seeks concealment especially in casel | of atrocious character. Such cases are com l mitted, generally, when an offender suppose \ n0 eye sees them and no ear hears, and con l sequently if such dark deeds shall ever be
 brought to the light of day, it must, in mos ! cases, be done by clrcumstantial evidence ! The circumstances in every case, must nee.
 essarily be consistent with the truth in the | transaction, for they did actually SO consist | The difference between direct and circumstan- | tial evidence must be well known to you all.
 If person should testify he saw A. B. cross | a certain field covered with snow, hil testimony may be of direct character
 If another person should testify tha | he saw tracks across that field made ir the snow and should detail the peculiar shape and other distinguishing peculiarities of thu | tracks, which are found to correspond in every particular to those attending the tracks of 4 | B, such evidence tending to show that A E | crossed that field would be of circumstantia f character. The force and conclusive nature | of this class of evidence depend upon tht | character and number of the circumstances \ detailed in evidence. In some cases 8 few \ circumstances may be sufficient to reduce g ! case to almost mathematical certainty that 4 B committed the crime laid to his charge while in other cases it may be of an incon- | elusive nature and entitled to but little con sideration.
 An eminent law writer thus comments upoE the importance of this class of evidence
 "The consideration of the nature of circum- stantial evidence and of the principles or which it is founded merits the most profound attention. It is essential to the well being al least, if not to the very existence of civil so ciety, that it should be understood that the secrecy with which crimes are committed will not insure immunity to the offender Circumstantial evidence is allowed to pre- vail to the conviction of crime, not because it is necessary and polite that it should be resorted to, but because it is | in it's own nature capable of producing the highest degree of moral certainty in it's appli-
 cation. Fortunately for the interests of soci- ety, crimes, especially those of great enormity
 and violence, can rarely be committed with.
 out affording vestiges by which the offende, | may be traced and ascertained.. The very measures which he adopts for his security mol \ infrequentiy turn ont to be the most cogent argument of guilt. All human dealings and ! transactions are vast context of circum okannaa intaruu0va1 and o0nraaoked xu,Ah aoa1