The Northern Pacific farmer. [volume] (Wadena, Minn.) 1878-1885, 1883-05-10
C1rcumstantial Evidences.

The effective administration Of
criminal law compels the re-
ceptlon of circumstances as evi-
dence against an accused person. It il
for the jury to decide whether the, cir
cumstances prove that the accused COM
mitted the crims. If they 10 demon
strate that alleged fact that it appears
morally certain, they bring in verdict
OF guilty. If, however. the proof only
amounts to a probability; then they may
give the accused the benefit ofthe doubt
and bring in verdict not guilty. The
following narrative; which reports a
Startling case of murder tried in York
shire, England shows that even the
most hostile circumstances may fail to
prove an accused man guilty:
Two travellers slept together ut a
small inn near Abbeford. In the morn
ing, one of them was found murdered in
his bed. The other was charged with
the crime. Stunned by the terrible &C.
cusation, he offered no explanation or
defence.
At the trial no motive for the crime
could be shown, but the circumstantial
evidence seemed to demonstrate that he
had committed it. A handful of hair.
which resembled the prisoners hair,
was discovered in the dead mans hand.
A button, similar to those worn by the
condemned man, was found on the bed,
and it was proved that it had been torn
OFT by the murdered man in his struggle
for life., The prisoners silence, hie pale
face and trembling lips, while these facts
were being brought to light, were almost
enough to convince the jury he Was
guilty:
But the climax was reached when the
prosecuting lawyer sal d; eff any more
proof were wanting, gentlemen of the
jury, that which I know have no offer
ought to convict the prisoner of the foul
crime. This pillow was discovered by
the landlord Of the inn stained with the
bloody II lures of the criminal, and upon
the wall by the side of the bed similar
blood-stains were found.
'The landlord cut out the wall paper
on which the bloody marks are imprinted
and now produce the paper and the
pillows as evidence. And 1 call Your at.
tention to the fact that the marks are
distinctly those of the thumb and first
three fingers. The absence of the little
finger is easily explained. The prisoner
has nonew
The excitement in the courtroom was
intense. Suddenly, as if waking out of
sleep, the accused asked this question of
the prosecuting lawyer:
"You say those marks on the pillow
and the wall are the blood-stains left by
the impression of thumb and three fin
gers of man 8 handw
II do. There can be no doubt of it."
"And those stains are the impression
left by the right hand, are they notw
certainly. That is ap .,arent to every
one; the thumb is towards the left"
But 1t is my left hand which has no
little finger; not my right" and the
man quietly raised his hand.
The gesture established the prisoners
innocence beyond a doubt. The jury
refused to. convict him in, spite of,he
evidence, and he was set
Suspicion was directed against the
landlord; and he was subsequently
OF. the crime. Finding escape
he mode full confession.
The hair found in the dead mans
hand was the landlords, and the button
lad been torn off his own coat. But
hey both respectively resembled the
hair and buttons of the accused traveller.
The landlord had noticed at the supper
table that his guest had but three fingers
On one hand, but he had made the fatal
mistake of not noting which hand was
lie fective. In his attempt to throw the |
guilt on his guest, he had used his own
right hand Instead Of his left to make |
The iiuDresSiOnS |