Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1881-11-10

"a o. llruFy. A. assault i = urunFiaI .,.s-,uf hf
onr Tcrsun 10 inhicI guenoe upon another, eih ~
mrzIs q caFylug such Efisiupi into rasrutlos and
hsitrFy b the nrtua uficiiou of ylolrncr n ons
persou upOu hnuthrr lou Hii b. abe 10 dst Trline
from the evidence Il The defendant a. li0ut hv iims
mrnt5urd la the cuuuty uf Hrnry l. guilty OF either
- these chzrssy. And VI this yOu musi ~ satisfied
bryond q raa-cnnhlr doubt,
'-On thc TsT Of ihr defendant & & clAimrd hat
althlu "a th. shot that Killed Arren q. Druly uus
nrr pistol held IN the hand Of the dsfridant
such -hui. LTci va, an accidgut OF misadyenture
10 which the defendant is not 70 be held responsible
"Au ao,ldtui IL an event that tAkes plaot without
once furcsight or expectation; event which pro.
ceeis frun an unknown Cause OF + an unusual edect
OF known cause, aud therefore not rnpecicd. n q
prr-ou IN the performance u lawful act, without
any intention 10 do harm, and alter using proper
caution 10 prevent danger, unfortunately kills anofh-
cr, he s not 10 b. held liable. Therefore you md
from the evidence that the defendant while In the
performance Of lawful act, without any intepton 20
do harm and using proper caution TO danger
shot and Killed Wuun g. Drury, he is not guilty and
/ you should - lind.
''ru determine this question, like all Others In the
case, you will examine aud consider the evidence
that which j. oaercd BY the state and also by the
dcfendant-und Ia considering confessions beaiing
upon this question: you will take into consideration
the whole that was said-giying cr,slit and weight,
however, only a. such YOU may believe 10 be true.
"a portion OF the evidence relied upon hy the state
TO sustain this action, consists IN what l. known as
the admissions confessions OF the defendant. Il
is my duty to instruct You TO the effect and weight
To be given to such testimony. In the mt place the
evidence, If verbal confessions, Is to be received
with great caution. The danger of mistake from
misApprehensiun Of the witness tu what was said
by th party the misuse of words, the failure Of the
party to express his own meaning, and the infrmty
In the memory OF the witness. together with the fact
that the mind Of the accused party may be oppressed
by the calamity of his situation and that he Is often
influenced by motive of hope or fear to make I'M
true confession, make the Of the rule-sub-
ject, however, to these cautions in receiving and
weighing them; deliberate confessions of guilt are
| among the most effectual proof in the law. Their
value depends, however, on the suppostiOn that they
are deliberate and voluntary and on the presumption
that rational being will not make admission pre-
judicial to his interest unless urged by the prompt
ings of truth and conscience. You will in con
sdering this kind of testimony take the whole con-
yersation bearing upon the subject together. In
order to get the whole meaning of party yeu should
examine the whole that was said ON the subject at
the time. You are then at liberty, upon such con-
sidera ion, to retain and act upon that portion which
you believe to be true and reject that portion you be-
ieve to he false You will therefore, in your e1ami
nation and consideration of this kind of testimony
offered and permitted to be given in evidence ap-
ply these rules, rather tests of the law and when
you have done so, you will give to it such weight
in your opinion II Is entitled to have.
"The defendant has offered evidence in support Of
his character peaceable and quiet citizen. The
testimony offered tends to prove such character
The Supreme Court of the State has said: The rea-
sonable effect of proof of good character is to raise
presumption that the accused not likely to have
committed the crime with which he is charged The
force of the presumption depends upon the strength
truth of the charge Good character is no excuse
for crime but 1t is fact bearing the question of
the guilt Of the accused which you are to consider
you do all the other facts In the case to determine
the truth of the charge. Therefore, you will con-
slider the evidence of good character in connection
with all the other facts and circumstances in the
case and give 1t such weight as in your opinion 1t
should have, ana If upon the whole evidence you be-
lieve the defendant to be guilty, you will find not
withstanding the evidence of good character.
"Your attention has been called to the various
rups and DrinciDlee of law GOVERNING this caa
Under these you will determine the facts looking to
all the testimony offered. 1t is your province to de
termine the credit to be given to each witness and
the weight to be given to his or her testimony In
determining these you will consider the interest
which witness may have in the suit or its result
the feeling he may have for or against either party
the opportunity the witness had of knowing that
about which he testifes, whether he contradicts
himself In different yortions of his testimony or
made statements out of this different from those
made upon the witness stand; and whether he is
contradicted by other witnesses. If you believe q
witness has purposely testified falsely to material
matter you at liberty to discard the whole of the
evidence Of such witness, you may reject such as
you believe to be false and retain such as you be-
lieve to be true 1t is your duty, however, II you
do so to reconcile the evidence and not to con-
cude that witness has testified falsely unless you
are forced so to do upon careful comparison and
conside alton of the testimony Of such witness.
"When the plea of not guityis entered by the de-
fendant as it Is in this case, the burden of proving
everything essential to the defendants guilt lies on
the prosecution This rule follows from the humane
principle of the law, that every person accused of
crime is presumed to be innocent until the contrary
proved. The rule oflaw also is that the defendant
cannot be lawfully convicted, unless the evidence
establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
GA reasonable doubts dehnedto be that state of |
the case which, after the entire consideration and |
comparison of all the evidence leaves the minds of
the jurors in that condition that they say they
feel an abiding conviction to moral certainty of the
truth OF the charge. Such doubt should be actual
and substantial; not merely possible and imaginary
because every thing relating to human affairs and
depending on moral evidence Is open to some pos
sible or imaginary doubt. If full and candid con-
s1deratton OF the evidence produces conviction of
guilt and satisfesthe mind to- reasonable certainty
a mere captous or factious doubt cannot avail.
"To state 1t in another form, the law requires the
facts proven to be consistent with the defendants
guilt and inconsistent with every other rational con-
clusion. The reasonable doubt contemplated by the
law must arise out of the facts proven or want of
sufficient proof and not from any extrinsic matter or
thing not arising or existing in the case.
'Iherefore If, after carefully examining the testi-
mony, your minds fully satisfied that YOU are
able to say without hesitation that each fact and
element necessary to constitute any crime charged
against the defendant in the Indictment is true
then the defendants guilt of that crime is proved
beyond reasonable doubt and it will be- your
duty to find him guilty of that crime.
But if the testimony, after careful consideration
and examination, only satisfies and convinoes you
that the circumstances very suspicious and such
as to render the defendants guilt possible or even
strongly probable, you must find him not guilty.
"If, after thus examining and weighing the testi-
nony you can reconcile it with any reasonable
hypothesis, consistent with the tdelendant's in
nocencc You must not find him guilty.
eff, after thus examining and considering the
you are fully satisfied and clearly con
vinced that some, or even majority of the facts
and elements necessary to constitute any crime
with which thc'defendant is charged in the iudict-
ment are true but are not fully satisfied and clearly
convinced that one element, necessary to consti-
tute that crime is true, you must find the defend
ant not guilty Of that crime. In short, you must
be iully satisfied and completely convinced that
each and every fact and element necessary to con-
stitute any crime with which the defendant is chare-
ed in the indictment is proved by the testimony be-
fore you will be warranted in finding the defendant
guilty of that crime.
"Gentemen: The case has been very fully.
carefully and ably tried by the learned counsel who
have appeared, both for the State and the defend
ant. They have by argument presented very fully
the effect which the evidence has in its varied and
different relations and applications to the case and
the conclusion to be drawn from it. Arguments of
counsel, experienced in the trial of causes, may
aid largely In determining the effect to be given and
conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.
81 have endeavOred rs fully and in as intelligent
a manner as can, to charge you the law governing
the case and under which you will determine it.
fully as it has been presented to you. in making
your determination you will render verdict born
Of your prejudice or borrowed from your sympa-
thies or impulses. 1t Is the pride and boast of our
law that all persons are equal before it. Iwould
be ashamed to preside in a court where this right
of parties, difference what their position may be-
are the mere paythings OF the caprice, the preju-
dice, or the passions of judge or jury sworn to n
Just administration Of the law. ~
'You are to exclude utterly from your considera-
ion all matters outside of the and test il BY its
own merits. There Is other way in which you can
espond to that oath You have taken to make q true
1ellverance between the State and the defendant.
It is the purpose of all judicial Investigations to as
certain the truth. You will endeayor 30 to do and
announce 1t by your verdict.
'You, upon your Oaths said that, Notwithstanding
my opinion you had previously formed, you could