Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1884-02-21
around or been attendant on the direct

aiounu Vi Uttl aLIeuudHt Oh Tic QffecL
fact are proved, from the existence of
which the direct fact may be inferred.
Circnmstantial evidence is sufficient
to warrant conviction in criminal
case II the jury by it are convinced be-
yond a reasonable doubt of the defend
ants guilt.
The date that it is alleged the defend
ant received the stolen property is the
29th day of June, 1882. The date al
legged need not be specifically proven.
IL the proof convinces you beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant re-
ceiyed the stolen property, as alleged in
the information, at any time from the
18th of June. 1882, up to the time of
his arrest upon this charge, it is suffi-
cient.
There are two elements in the charge
made against the defendant. lst, That
the property of the express company
mentioned in the information was
stolen. End. That the defendant re-
ceived that property, knowing it 10 have
been stolen.
To convict the defendant YOU must be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
that both of these elements of the crime
charged against him have been proven.
To convict the defendant in this case,
you must be convinced, beyond a rea-
sonable doubt, that the money found
buried in the stable was part of the
money OF the express company that had
been sent by the First National Bank of
Milwaukee to Mr.. Pipkin, that it had
been stolen from the safe in the express
Office, that it had been received by the
defendant before it was buried, and that
at the time the money was received bv
the defendant he knew it had been
stolen.
The recent unexplained possession of
stolen property is a fact of a criminal
nature. 1t does not raise a presump-
ton OF law that the one having the
property is guilty of larceny. or of re-
ceiving the property knowing it to have
been stolen. BY presumption of law,
mean that the Court is not warranted in
instructing a jury that if the fact of
such recent unexplained possession be
proved, the law presumes guilt. But
the recent unexplained possession of
stolen property raises what is known as
presumption of fact that the possessor
Is guilty. That is, it is fact for the
jury and they are to give to it such
weight as. they, under all the circum-
stances OF the case, may deem it should
receive.
In order to raise presumption of
guilt such possession must be recent,
that is, soon after the alleged offense
was committed. But what may be con-
considered recent, varies with the cir
cumstances in each case. If the prop
erty stolen were circulating medium
like money, and it was found in the
pocket OF one number of days after
the larceny, the presumption would be
much weaker than if it were found in
his pocket on the day of the larceny or
the day after; and if the stolen money
were found in the pocket book of one
two weeks after the larceny, such pos
session would afford no presumption of
guilt, unless the amount were shown to
be much larger than the accused was
ordinarily possessed of, as on that ac-
count to cast suspicion upon him.
And the reason why such lapse OF
time would do away with any presum-
ton of guilt is, that money passes from
hand to hand without question, and the
same bill may pass through hands OF
many men within few days. But il
large amount of money that has been
stolen, is found, not in the pocket-book
OF the accused, nor IN a place where
money is ordinarily kept when received
in the usual course of dealing, but
buried in the ground, with indications
from its condition of having been buried
for some time, then the one who had
the money and buried it there, unless
his possession of the money was ex-
planned, might, even several months
| after the larceny, be affected by said
| presumption.
1t you have no reasonable doubt
upon all the evidence, that the defend.
ant is guilty, your verdict should be
guilty.
If you have reasonable doubt either
that the property was stolen, or that
the defendant received the stolen prop
erty, or received it knowing it to have
been stolen, your verdict will be not
guilty.
The jury, after being out few hours
brought in a verdict of guilty, and the
defendant was remanded for sentence
To-day, Wednesday, defendants coun
sci moved for an arrest of judgment
which the court granted. and Jenkins
if sentenced at all, will not receive hi
punishment until after decision is haC
from the Supreme Court. Pending tht
decision. he will remain in Jail.