Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1883-11-01

tactorlly proven, if any. and having
done this, determine and decide their
reasonable and necessary logic re.
membering the while that the law
presumes the defendant to be innocent
and that In passing upon evidence
tending to establish defendants guilt,
IT there is any such, he is entitled to
the benefit of every reasonable doubt,
II any exists, as to his guilt to the
crime charged, and of every necessary
ingredient Of such crime.
The defendant being seen travelling
upon the railroad track, apparently on
his way from one place to another, as
seems to have been common among
the people of that vicinity, is in and
of itself no evidence of a criminal
purpose upon his part. The same is
true of some, at least, of the others of
the facts that are conceded to be true,
as, for instance, the fact that defendant
went to the house of Charles Caron,
staid there over night, aud went fishing
the next day that he changed his
clothes, in the manner testified to :;
shaved off his beard, and bought mon
ely orders to the amount of eleven
dollars. No one of these facts, in and
of itself, and disconnected with other
facts, is such as would tend to show
that defendant had committed crime.
They may, perhaps, some one or all of
them, when connected with other es-
tablished facts that tend to connect
defendant with the commission of a
crime, if any such facts there be, tend
to corroborate or strengthen such
other facts
The fact if it is fact, that defendant
put distractions upon the railroad
track, is, Of itself, no evidence that he
is guilty of the crime for which he is
now on trial. 1t can only be made
material to the inquiry in which you
are engaged, by being connected with
some other fact or facts which indie
pendently of, or by reason of their
connection with, the fact of such
obstruction, tend to prove the defend
ant guilty Of the murder.
In Determining the question Of the
defendants guilt or innocence, it is
proper that you shall inquire if the
evidence discloses any motive on his
part, for the commission of the crime.
In determining whether the motive
was robbery, you should inquire
whether defendant knew, or had any
reason to believe, that deceased had
money on his person at the time he
was assaulted; because, if the testimony
does not disclose such knowledge, OF
the grounds for believing such fact,
then such motive is not affirmatively
shown.
In determining whether hatred or
revc &c constituted the motive, it is
proper to determine from the testi.
mony, whether the parties were pre-.
viously known to each other, and il
so, whether any former trouble OIL
difficulty had occurred between them;
for if they were unacquainted. such
motive is not affirmatively shown.
These considerations are proper in
determining from the evidence the
principal question of guilt or limo
cence; but where the guilt is salts
factorily proven, the motive becomes
immaterial, except, as before explained
in determining the grade or degree o f
the crime committed.
A man is presumed to intend the
natural consequences Of his act, and
when the commission of the act is
satisfactorily proven, the intent Of the
preparation to accomplish its natural
consequences is presumed by the law.
This case is in your hands, gentle
men, to be decided by you in the best
light given you, being the evidence
detailed upon the trial, aided by your
impartial, unbiased and conscientious
judgments. You are the tribunal
created by the law to judge between
the state and your fellow upon his
trial for the highest crime known to
the law. Proceed in your duty, re-
membering that you are chosen to see
to it, that while the majesty and
integrity of the law, which is the
voice of the people, must be upheld
and maintained, the liberty of no
citizen, however friendless or humble,
shall be unjustly taken away.
Verdicts have been prepared here,
gentleman, by the parties on the re-
spective sides, which [ have not read,
but one [ understand to be for the de-
PENDANT, mot guilty." and the other
to be for the crime of murder in the
first degree Of course if you should
find either of these facts you will use
the proper verdict. If you find from
the testimony that the crime of "mur-
der in the third degree" was commit
ted, instead of the first, why you
should make the necessary correction
in that direction. | will say that dur
ing your deliberation you are not to
have anything in the way of news