Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-29

! being ROBBED and plundereo, employ
| ing detective to detect 8 criminal?
Are they to be condemned for this action?
Is there nything wrong in this action? If
| so, l fail to see it. You have heard Ken
nedy called spy. an informer. He is not q
| spy-he Is detective, whose business il is to
! expose crime, and for that reason he Is de-
nounced az q villain, while the man he de-
tected is held up as a christian gentleman.
Slnnott himself verified every part of the de-
tective's story, and 1 tell you, gentlemen of
the jury, that there was vile conspiracy on
| the part OF Mundinger and Sinnott to defeat
Justice. There are many points in this case,
gentlemen, that have not touched upon /
have merely given you a brief outline There
Is no reasonable doub. in this case, gentle
men. The guilt Of the defendant stands out
as bright as day. Reasonable doubt, gentle
men, does not mean, gentlemen, a mere
ehlmers OF the brain. L. means a firm, we'll
settled conviction upon which you are will
ing TO stand against everything-upon
which you are willing to stand before your
own conscience and your God. / trust gen.
tlemen, as 1 know you will, that you give
this case your most earnest attention and
consideration.
THE CHARGE TO THE JURY.
AT the conclusion of the argument the
Court charged the Jury substantially as fol-
lows:
"The defendant is charged in the indict-
noent with embezzlement, larceny, fraudulent
breach of trust, and obtaining money under
| false pretenses. On the first three counts
you will return verdict of mot guilty. and
| then consider whether or not the defendant is
| guilty of obtaining money under false pre-
| lenses. The Court then read the legal def
| milton of the ofense. There are several
! essential elements to constitute this offense.
1t must appear that it was committed in
Shelby county before the finding OF the in
dictment and that the defendant obtained
the money from the Lowensteins with the in
tention to defraud them, they relying on his
false representations. If the defendant BY
means of the return check, represented 10
the cashier of the Lowensteins that \ pair
of bracelets had been returned, when, in
fact, they had not, and the defendant by this
means obtained from the cashier s. so with
the intention of converting it to his own use,
the defendant would then be guilty. II,
however, the bracelets had been re-
turned i, as defendant contends, he would
violated the rules of the house.
If you find the defendant guilty, you will
fix his punishment at from two to ten years
in the penitentiary. The Court gives you the
law. but you are the judges of the credibility
of the witnesses, and will give the testimony
weight, not according to its amount, but &C
cording TO the confidence with which it in
o u
thing it does not follow that it is true. A
witness can be impeached by the testimony
of others that they would not believe him
under oath on account of his bad character,
and the fact that the character of a witness
has been assaile6 in this way casts re-
prosch upon his testimony. Another way to
impeach witness is by proving that he has
made, at different times, two different state
ments as TO the material facts in the case;
hr,t uyil dafa hath
facts are accurately reported. Still another
way is by rigid cross-examination, involving
the witness in contradictions on the stand.
Conflicting testimony you will reconcile if
you can, and if not, you are the judges of
what is true. You will also take into con-
sideration the conduct of witnesses on the
stand, and the con'istency and probability of
their statements. Conversations are not re-
garded as very high evidence in law, for the
reason that they may be misunderstood or
inaccurately reported. If you find that
either of the parties fabricate testimony, it
is circumstance against them, and such tes-
tImony you will otherwise disregard. If the
evidence relied on by the State is circum-
stantial, it must be equal in strength to the
direct testimony of one credible witness be-
fore you can convict. The statement of de-
fendaut is not evidence, and cannot be taken
to contradict evidence; but is TO be looked
upon by the jury in the same light as an ar
gument of counsel. The confession of the
defendant Is the same class OF evidence as
conversations. The good character of the de-
PENDANT is merely circumstance TO be looked
to in connection with all other
facts in the case; but it will neither excuse
nor palliate crime. The statement of Mr..
Shouse that he told Mrs. Burke that he and
sixteen others saw Mundinger steal is only
admitted in connection with the question of
veracity between Mr.. Shouse and Mrs. Burke,
and it is not to be regarded as evidence of
the fact. The same is true OF the testimony
of Kennedy as to the statements made to
them as testing the credibility of Sinnott.
Before you can convict the defendant you
must be SO we'll satisfied OF his guilt that
you would be willing TO act upon it in mat
tiers of the highest Importance to yourselves.
With judgment unswayed by prejudice and
unwarped by sympathy, you must look, in
this case, gentlemen, alone to the evidence
and the law.
At the request of Mr.. Taylor the court
charged the jury that in weighing the testi-
money of the detective Kennedy they might
consider his calling; but that it did not fol-
low that on account of that circumstance
merely he should be disbelieved. The court
further ch arged the jury, on request of Mr..
Taylor, that if the bracelets were returned
and paid for, it was immaterial whose they
were, but lat request of Ge1eral Wright
that the fact of the wrong name being gwen
on the ticket was eliminating circumstance
against the defendant. Upon Mr.. Taylor's /
asking for an additional charge (which had
already been given) the court charged the |
jury that they could look at everything that
occurred at the courthouse, and then adj
journed till 7:30 pm.