Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-02-14

he committed the theft. You see, how
ever, II is not a necessary conclusion
II Is but an inference drawn from tn,
other facts. 10 is an inference drawn
against him, which he can generally
by testimony, explain, by showing
where he obtained the property. II Il
an inference stronger or weaker, accord
ing TO the length Of time that ha'
elapsed since the loss Of the property
and the ease with which il might bt
transmitted from one to another with
out the capacity to recollect where II
came from. Then II you find from
the evidence that the breast-pin and
the watch, and pocket-book, or either
were the property and in the possession
of one or the other Of the deceased per
sons, Immediately or soon before the
killing; that such property, or any pOr.
ton, was found in the possession of the
defendent soon after the killing; that he
attempted to secrete any portion OF
such property; that such possession is
not explained by testimony--these
facts, II all found by you from the testi-
mony, would tend to established the
guilt of the defendant; and from them
and Others in proof, you may infer his
guilt. That, however, Is a matter en-
tirely with you, it not being my pur-
pose to revert to the evidence further
than to illustrate to you the application
of circumstantial evidence to the case.
Before interference of guilt can be
drawn, you must find the facts from
which such inferences are drawn fully
established by the evidence.
will not, nor is it necessary, to 90
into detail as to the various circumstan-
ces relied upon by the State, nor to
touch upon the force of or weight to be
given to the evidence; that is for You.
My purpose is to illustrate to YOU the
relation which each circumstance has
to the question you are investigating
In regard to the money. It's posses
sion alone would furnish no circum-
stance or fact. against the defendent,
but in connection with other circum-
stances may be considered by you. In
this connection you would inquire If
the defendant was possessed of money
soon before the time of the alleged
killing, or was he without funds? If
without, and the day after the murder
he was possessed of funds, such circum-
stance, unexplained, and if it is shown
there was loss of money at the house
of Mrs. Williams, then it becomes a
circumstance to he passed on by you, as
any other in the case, you, however,
alone to determine, as have said, its
force, and any inference to be drawn
from it.
A question arises as to the finding of
blood stains or spots upon the boots of
the defendant claiming to have been
worn by him on the night it is alleged
Mrs. Williams was killed. To establish
the fact that such stains or spots were
made by human blood experts were
called as witnesses is, persons
whose education, experience, and
knowledge of such subject is such that
their opinion may be given in evidence.
The weight to be given to such testimO-
ny depends very much upon what ap-
pears in evidence to be the extent of the
qualifications of such witnesses, and the
opportunity they had of making such
tests as were necessary to ascertain the
certainty of that about which they tes-
tify to. You will consider such testi-
mony, as also any evidence offered on
the part of the defendant explanatory
of or accounting for such blood stains
or spots, and like all other facts in the
case, give to it such weight as in your
opinion it deserves. And any inference
to be drawn from it is for you to deter
mine, applying the rules of law I have
given.
If you are fully satisfied from the evil
dence that the defendant wore the boots
in the testimony on the night of the
killing; that the blood stains on them
are human blood; that its existence is
only reconcilable with the fact that they
were produced from the blood of one of
the murdered persons, then such evil
dence would strongly tend to sustain
the case of the prosecution; and from it
an inference of guilt may arise. If,
however, the facts from which such in
ference is drawn are not found by you
from any evidence, an inference of guilt
can not be drawn or exist.
Your attention will also be directed
to the evidence tending to establish the
time of the killing-the absence of the
defendant from the place where he was
residing; the time absent; if sufficient to
travel to and from the place where the
deceased, Isabella E. Williams, resided,
and commit the offense-any evidence
tending to explain his whereabouts dur
ing such time; all these various things
as they appear in evidence are for your
consideration, and for you to give to
each such weight in determining the
case as in your judgment it may deserve.
And so you will consider all the evil
dence offered.
[ have gone over some portions of the
evidence, not to collate it, not to show
how strongly it may bear, not to con-
meet it, but to show in what respect it is
to be taken by you as bearing directly,
and in what respect it only establishes
some collateral fact.
You will give the evidence as you
Dna-e a .aa > a,,4z "a = A