The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1881-07-21

good order, Wnlcn SnOulu never De per
mitted to enter the jury room. 1t
means such serious and reasonable
doubt as might perhaps remain on the
honestly enquiring mind of the juror
after faithfully and conscientiOusly con-
sidering and weighing all the facts and
circumstances developed by the proof.
The evidence in criminal as in civil
cases may be either direct or circum-
stantial, or both combined. You will
understand that In criminal cases, the
guilt of the accused may be proven be-
yond the existence Of reasonable
doubt by circumstantial evidence, as
we'll as by direct evidence. Indeed, as
crimes are usually cOmmittedin secrecy,
often in the darkness Of the night, 1t is
very seldom that direct evidence is at
tainable to prove the offenders guilt.
in most cases circumstantill evidence
must, therefore, of necessity, be re-
sorted to, and relied on to prove guilt,
or crime must 60 unpunished. This
is particularly true in most cases of
murder, wner9 no other than circum-
stantial evidence is ordinarily attaina-
bic, but which is often Of the most con-
vincing and satisfactory character. For
experience has shown that the criminal
who has committed some secret crime
such as murder, has whilst plotting
and carrying out his dark deed, often
LETT series of traces behind him, and
often become entangled in a webb of
circumstances, pointing with almost
unerring eel ltainty to his guilt. Hence,
it is, that oftena chain of circumstances
well established by the proof, will fast
en- guilt upon the offender, with as
great a degree Of certainty, as the dl-
rect evidence of witnesses to the act
could establish it; and often such cir
cumstantial evidence may prove to be
the more satisfactory to the honestly
enquiring mind. Hence Courts have
been led to say: Circumstances clearly
proven never lie, whilst witnesses tes-
tifying about the act may be honestly
mistaken in their observations and
statements or they may dishonesty
prevert the truth. Circumstantial evil
dence, if of a reliable and satisfactory
character, may, therefore, suffice to
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
the same as direct evidence.
Guilt beyond reasonable doubt is es-
tabhshed, when the facts proven are
not consistent with the theory of the
prisoners innocence; or in other words
when the facts proven exclude every
reasonable hypothesis Of the prisoners
innocence,
l will now proceed to cal
your attention to the issues in
the case somewhat in detail, and to eX'
plain the law governing the case. The
charge embrace in the indictment is
murder in the first degree as defined
and made punishable by the first Sec
tion of our Crimes Act That section
reads as follows;
whoever purposely, and either of
deliberate and premeditated malice, or
by means of poison, Or in perpetrating
or attempting to perpetrate, any rape,
arson robbery or burglary, kills anoth-
er, is guilty Of murder in the first de-
gree, and shall suffer death.
So far as the charge in the present
case is concered, we may read it for the
sake of clearness as follows:
Whosoever purposely by means Of
poison kills another, is guilty of MUIR
der in the first degree, and shall suffer
death,
Before entering upon the COnsidera-
tion of the essential elements Of the
crime of murder in the first degree as
charged in the indictment, it is neces-
sary that l bring to your attention
provision in our statute in reference to
the trial and verdict of the jury in all
cases Of homicide, Upon an indict-
ment for murder in the first degree, the
jury may, if the proof warrants it, and
as it may be warranted by the proof, by
its verdict find the defendant gully OF
murder in the first degree, or, if not
proven guilty Of that degree, fndlhim
guilty of murder in the second degree,
or if not proven guilty Of murder in
either the first or second degree, find
him guilty of manslaughter only, and
the provision mentioned requires, that
if the jury finds the prisoner guilty in
such case, it shall specify in its verdict
whether it finds him guilty Of murder
in the first degree, or of murder in the
second degree, or Of mauslaughter on
ly. This makes it necessary that the
Court call your attention to the differ
ence and distinction between these sew
eral degrees of himicide. Murder in
the first degree, so far as applicable to
the present case, | will define and eX-
plain to you more in detail. Murder
in the second degree may be defined to
be the killing Of another purposely and
maliciously, but not Of deliberate or
malice. Manslaughter is
the unlawful killing Of another If
the killing be unlawful it will amount
to manslaughter, whether or not it be
and whether or not it be NAL
icious. But If it be unlawful, and
both purposed and malicious, it will
be murder in the second degree and not
manslaughter; and if it be both pur-
posed and malicious, and Of deliberate
and premeditated malice, it is then
murder in the first degree.
will now call your attention to, the
n