Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1884-02-29
C1RCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
There is no branch of the law more
Interesting than that which relates to
evidence, the means by which cases,
civil and criminal, are proved to be
true Of false. There are two kinds of
evidence-direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence is where a witness
tnstifes to the precise fact which is the
subject at issue. as that he personally
saw the deed signed, or the fatal blow
struck. Circumstantial evidence, on
Che other hand, is evidence not of the
precise fact to be proved, but of collateral
Eacts from which the principal fact may
be inferred, rs where is case of murder
resulting from a pistol shot, witnesses
testify that the wad from the pistol was
found in the wound, that this wad
was of paper constituting part of q
printed ballad, the corresponding part
Of the same ballad was found in the
pocket of the accused, and that the
accused had, the day before, purchased
such q ballad at a certain shop, and
ench . pistol from a certain other shop.
Al this is circumstantial evidence from
which the principal fact, the prisoners
guilt, may be inferred, although NO n
actually saw the shot fired.
The French have made the most of
the possibilities of circumstantial
evidence in their detective stories, many
ofwhich are Of horribly thrilling interest
as watches the web slowly spun
around the innocent victim, of the we'll
laid plot unraveled by the marvellous
skill of the detective. Many of these
are mere creatures of their authors
brain; the skeins purposely tangled,
only that they may be unraveled with
rare ingenuity. But others are founded
upon actual cases, and owe their
intense interest to their truth.
4 II is sometimes said that circumstan-
eal evidence is much more satisfactory
than even direct evidence, because the
witness who t%estifies directly to a fact
may be false and corrupt, and it may
be impossible to detect his falsehood.
Numerous instances have occurred of
this where the guilty party has, by the
direct evidence. either Of himself or his
oonfederates, managed to convict an
annocent person, and thus personally
escape punishment. AS in the case Of
THE German violin maker, who, being
On London, bought a silver coffee pot,
intending to take it home as a present
to his wife. It was standing on the
table in his room when two Jews called
at his door to see him in regard to a
violin. While he was engaged il con-
versation with the one, the other
snatched up the coffee pot and ran.
The violin maker was about to pursue
She thief, when the other Jew told him
had been done as a sort of practical
joke, and that if he would 90 with him
to bis lodgings, he would make his
friend return the pot to him. Ac-
cordingly they went together, and
entered a room in the Jewish quarter
where sat four Jews at a table with the
pot before them. After explana-
lions were made, and an apology offered
for the trouble they had given him,
the Jews very politely handed him the
coffee pot, and he went his way rejoic-
ing. They Immediately, however,
went to a Magistrate, swore out a
warrent for the Germans arrest for
having entered their chamber and
stolen their coffee pot A search of
course, discovered the coffee pot in
the Germans possession, and the Jews,
each and all, swearing that it belonged
70 them, and that the German had taken
it from their room (Which latter he
could not deny, although he attempted
to explain it), their evidence was
to outweigh his own, and he
was accordingly convicted by their
direct, though corrupt, evidence.
On the other hand, it is claimed that
the laws of nature and the relation of
things to each other are 80 linked and
combined together, that it is almost
impossible to manufacture a chain of
Garcumstantial evidence which, coming
las it must from different witnesses, and
6nvolving separate and distinct facts,
cannot by a careful sitting and COM
parison be detached and destroyed.
And one Judge has gone SO far as to
say that circumstances are more con-
vncing and satisfactory than any other
kind of evidence, because facts cannot
aic." And another, sit is not within
the reach and compass of human
abilities to inveh a train of circumstances
which shall be so connected together
as to amount to a proof of guilt, without
a%ffording opportunities of contradicting
a great part, if not all, of these circum-
stances"
This may be true in theory, but it
certainly is not always so in practice,
as is amply proved by the long line of
cases in which circumstantial evidence
has led to the conviction of persons who
were afterwards shown to be absolutely
innocent. And Mr.. Phillips, who is an
authority in all matters of evidence, in
the introduction of his interesting work
on 'Circumstantial Evidence" combats
the position quite vigorously, saying:
-'That facts cannot lie is sound logic,
no doubt. Men only lie. But as we
only know facts through the medium of
witnesses, the truth of the fact depends
always upon the truth of the witness,
SO that if he furnishes us with Thousand
facts, it is of no consequence if he him
self is unsound." And he thereupon
proceeds in the body Of his work to set