Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1884-02-21
State VS.. Joseph Jenkins.

pied the time of the Judge, jury and
lawyers during Thursday and Friday.
About forty witnesses were sworn,
the testimony against the defendant
being entirely circumstantial. r. G.
Orr, District Attorney, assisted by 1. J.
Brooks, of the law firm of Brooks and
butcher, represented the State; Messrs.
A. X. Bushnell and Alex. Provis being
the attorneys for the defendant.
The presentment charged defendant
jenkins with having burglarized the
safe of the United States Express COM
pany at BoscoDel. on or about June 20,
1882. Also charged him with having
received the stolen property, some
$1,000, knowing the same to have been
stolen. The State, before proceeding to
trial. decided to try the cause on the lat
ter count, to-wit: receiving the stolen
property, knowing it to have been
| stolen.
The testimony of the State showed
that tor many years previous to the rob-
berry of the express company's safe at
Boscobel, on June 80, 1882, the defend
ant was poor man, often in very
Strengthened circumstances, and at no
| time had the possession of any great
sums of money. In fact, that his only
visible means of making livelihood
for himself and family was the frequent
trades of horses he made whereby he
received small sums as s'boot money!
That shortly after the robbery referred
to, jenkins was in the possession of
large amount of money; that he bought
and paid for q small farm in Crawford
county; that he purchased horses, a
wagon and harness. paying money
therefor at the time of making his pur-
chases; that he frequently displayed large
sums of money to different people, and
made many purchases for his house and
for his family. The State also proved
| by the defendants father and brother
matters that went far to establish their
case. The brother testified that under
the direction of the defendants wife, he
went to barn, owned by j. N. Com
stock of Boscobel, and occupied by the
defendant, and dug up from the ground
in one of the horse stalls $1.475; that
$500 of that money was placed for bail
and the remaining 1915 returned to the
defendant. The testimony was well
put in and, as the conclusion shows, had
its effect.
The testimony of the defense was
mainly of nature to counterfeit the
testimony of the State, and an effort was
made to show that the defendant, prior
to the robbery spoken of, was frequently
in possession of large amounts of money
The attorneys, in presenting the case
to the jury, made extraordinary efforts
in closing for the State, made the best,
most logical, and most effective speech
of his practice. He surprised them all,
and made more good points than any of
his friends had expected he could do.
The charge of Judge Clementson is
herewith appended for the purpose of
showing the law points the jury had for
returning their verdict in the case. The
first eight charges were given the jury
at kn a hn IafanIaa4,
The jury must not permit the fact
that the defendant has not testified in
his own behalf in this case to create
any presumption against him in this
case.
The defendant is to be presumed in
nocent until his guilt is established by
competent proofs, and no fact necessary
to the establishment of his guilt, can be
taken as true, unless it is established by
such proofs.
There is no evidence before you that
the defendant has ever been in the
States Prison, and you will regard him
as of good standing and character in ev-
cry respect except so far as proven 9TH
erwise.
To establish the charge made against
the defendant, you must be satisfied,
beyond a reasonable doubt: LIST, That
the moneys mentioned in the informa-
ton were stolen. End, That the de-
PENDANT received those same identical
moneys, or some part thereof 3rd.
That when he received the moneys, or
some part thereof, he knew the same to
have been stolen.
The possession of any amount OF
money by the defendant, is not alone
sufficient to justify conviction.
The sudden lettering of the defend
ants circumstances, and his possession
of more money than it was generally
supposed he had, if proven and wholly
unexplained, are only circumstances OF
suspicion. and cannot justify you in con-
victing the defendant. added by the
court. If you should find there was a
sudden lettering of the defendants cir
cumstances, you may consider that fact
on arriving at verdict in this case.
You cannot convict the defendant
merely on suspicion.
1t is not here properly charged that
the defendant is guilty of anything else
than the receiUing of stolen money,
knowing the same to have been stolen
and unless you are satisfied from the ev-
idence, beyond reasonable doubt that
the defendant is guilty of that offense,
you will find him not guilty.
BY THE COURT.
The charge against the defendant,
Joseph jenkins, is, that he did, on the
29th day of June, 1882, at this county
of Grant, receive bills, notes and prop.
, erty of the United States Express Com
pany, of the value of 50, 800; that had
heretofore been stolen from said Express
Company, and that at the time he re-
eeived said property he knew it to have
been stolen.
This charge is founded upon Section
4,417 of the Revised Statutes, which pro.
vides 'sThat any person who shall buy,
receive, conceal, or aid in the conceal
ment of, stolen money, goods or prop,
, erty, knowing the same to have beer
stolen, shall receive the same punish
ment as hereinbefore provided for the
stealing of such money, goods or prop
erty; and in any prosecution for such
, offense, it shall not be necessary to avel
: or prove that the person who stole the
same has been convicted
: Our Statute makes three grades Of
larceny. The first is where the prop.
erty stolen does not exceed twenty dol
lars in value; the second is where the
property stolen exceeds twenty dollar.
. in value, but does not exceed one hun
t dred dollars; and the third is where the
: property stolen exceeds one hundred