Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-06-03

conviction and belief that that witness
spoke the truth and that the accused
was guilty; yet there was quantWm
Of proS. 1t must be spoken by two
witnesses. and until spoken by two
witnesses the accused could not be con-
vlcted Of the offence with which he was
charged.
THE QUANTUM OF PROOF.
Then we have divine authority for the
wise rule of law that says that the jury,
before they can convict, must be salts
he'd beyond reasonable doubt, aud we
put the reasonable doubt in the place
OF the two witnesses under our law,
and that is the only difference. But
the qudntum. the measure, is the same.
Two witnesses were necessary under
the Mosaic law to convict, to abolish
reasonable doubt. So, under our law,
as long as there is reasonable doubt
no conviction can be had. You may
believe, the facts and circumstances
may point, suspicious may be aroused,
but until you reach that point where
the uranium Of proof is full and COM
plete verdict of guilty can never le-
gally be rendered.
ClRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Now, gentlemen Of the jury, this is
so in every case. Ii is particularly so
in cases Of circumstantial evidence. His
Honor has said to you that every fact
and every circumstance in the chain OF
circumstances necessary to connect the
accused with the crime must be sepa-
rately and Independently proved by
that qHdntUm Of proof. You find the
elementary books teeming with the as
sertion that this is particularly true in
cases Of circumstantial evidence, and
that the jury must be cautious to weigh
carefully every fact, every circumstance,
necessary to connect the accused with
the crime. Prescriptions must not be
confounded with circumstances. say,
gentlemen Of the jury, and | would
have that impressed upon your minds,
as one Of the cardinal principles which
is to lead you to just determination
in this case-a presumption must not
be coniounded with a circumstance.
POPPY-wATER CASE.
A very celebrated case is reported in
the books Of man convicted Of MUIR
der by poison. One of the circum-
stances necessary to establish that poi
soning was in the drink that was adj
miniStered to the deceased and the
only circumstance to prove it was that
the potion smelt like some decoction
that was poison in itself-poppy-water.
Now, there was a circumstance. The
circumstance was the fact that it had a
peculiar smell What was the pre-
sumption: The presumption was by
the jury that because a dose had been
administered which smelt like poppy
water or deadly poison therefore the
man who administered that potion poi
soned the deceased. Upon that bare
circumstance, and the presumption that
arose out Of that circumstance, the ac-
| cused was convicted and executed.
And it has come down to US from that
day to this as one of the cases in which
E jury had confounded a presumption
with a circumstance, and an innocent
man in all probability was executed
and went to an untimely grave.
PRESUMPTION.
Now. all through the consideration
of this evidence, gentlemen OF the jury,
do not allow your minds to confound a
circumstance with a presumption. A
circumstance may be placed beyond a
reasonable doubt, but then there may
be great doubt as TO what is the proper
deduction to be made from that circum-
stance. Tracks are seen leading uT
from the hole in the fence to a point or
the reservoir embankment. You are
asked TO deduce from that circumstance
the fact that the prisoner and the de-
ceased on the night of the 18th Of
March took that lonely route. Not
only must the circumstance itself BE-
established beyond a reasonable doubt,
but the jury must be cautious and
careful in making the deduction from
the circumstance. The circumstance
may be proved, but the deduction
made, if not cautiously made, may be
fallaciously made, and an innocent mar
may be- offered up. when he should 60
from the court Of justice acquitted oi
the crime with which he is charged.
Now, gentlemen Of the jury, so much
for the nature of the evidence necessary
to convict in criminal cases, so much
for its origin, so much for its wisdom,
so much for the caution and care that
YOU are to exercise in making deduc'
tons from circumstances established.
COLONEL AYLETT REVIEWED.
propose. in the next place, to take
up the speech Of my esteemed and elo'
quent friend from the county adjoining
my own Colonel Aylett), whom | have
loved ever since | knew myself. whom
| have honored and admired for his no
BILE traits of heart and head, whom
God grant, | shall never cease to honor
and revere--a truthful and faithful at
torney. His diction was delightful
his eloquence was inspiring; but. gen
tlemen. as | have said to him before
his logic was loose and incOnclusive.
One of the propositions of my frienC
is that when evidence Of guilt is let in
then presumption Of guilt arises. Ny
friend said that when he had steam NJ
and a full head Of it on. He knows, anC
he would not have said otherwise in M
calm moments, that the presumption o
guilt cannot arise until the verdict Il
rendered by the jury that the man u
guilty. He stands always clothed II
the garment Of innocence that the Law
has thrown about him, and the pre-
sumption of guilt can never arise unit
the verdict Of the jury has said that tn
accused is guilty.
THE TRACKS.
Nv friends first inquiry was, Wa
it murder? Second, Who was the mur
derer? And to establish the first pro
position he starts on the embankmen
at the reservoir where the tracks wer
seen and says that the evidence dis
closes the fact that they are opposite t