Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-11-13

not Be true, and which II would seem be
ought 20 have known TO be untrue. be
nay no. Be guilty Of intentional false
hood Man - - constituted that bis
powers Of attention. Of resollsctiou and
OF EXPRESSION. are not en- all occasions
the same or equally at bis command.
hence, bis socounis, 81 drfferea; times,
1 OF tie s8me oce0rrehces are liable
70 vary Men differ from one another
% much In faculties. experiences and
habits, and 10 the way and degree IN
which they are affected by situation
and surroundings, that when they are
eye Witnesses to the same things they
are not likely, vithoo. COLLISION, 10 give
precisely similar relations of What hap
pened. They see things from different
stand points they pay unsq1al st,en-
tior; thew vary their attention unequal
ly; they differ both in their natural
power and in their practise of o5serva-
ton they cannot remember equally
well they differ in their comman nd Of
language and the facility and accuracy
With which they are able 20 translate
thought into speech and they are nos
equally subj sct & embarrassment and
other mental affections leading 80 in
terfsre with the wont d use Of their va
nous faculties. Aad then. also, the
human mind. In trying TO comprehead
| what IL passing before II, ia prone to fill
up by the imagination the gaps IN what
| 10 gwen by the senses, and Is after wards
unable TO distinguish between What Vas
given by the senses and what vas sup
Piled by the Imagination. 10 these and
other ways discrepancies may have aris-
en- IN the testimony before you. IL you
md them you should eDdesvsr to re-
concile the conflicting portions of evi-
aence 80 as to consist. II possible, with in
territorial truthfuIness of witnesses. But
II you become satisfied that any witness
has Knowingly testified to what is not
true, as to any material point in the
case. you will be at liberty to disregard
his testimony altogether, pit 80 far
as corroborated by o,1<Sr evidence. A
material point is orr, which, il proved.
would tend to Influence your minds
in favor Of the guilt or the innocence of
the defendant as to any criuse incladsa
IN this indictment.
You have no right to disregard the
testimony Of the defendant on the
ground alone that he is the defendant,
and stands charged with the commits
sion of an offsHse. The Law presumes
him innocent until he Is proved guilty,
AID the Law allows him to testify in his
own behalf, and the jury should impair
TALLY and fairly consider his testimony,
together with all the other evidence in
the case.
Samuel Robertson Is what is known in
law az an accomplish; and while it is
rule OF Law that person accused of
aPi ina ma "a AIR NJ .s af1n he
roborated testimony of an accomplish, |
still jury should always act upon such |
testimony with great care and caution,
and subject IL to careful examination,
in the light of all the other evidence 10 |
the case and the jury ought not to |
convict upon sush testimony alone, un.
less, after q carefol examination thereof, |
they are satisfied beyond all reasonable |
doubt of its truth and that they can |
safely rely upon it.
The degree of credit, however, which |
olght TO be given to the testimony OF |
IN acoomplioe Is a % itter exclusively
within the provinces Of the jury. he
witness Samuel Robertson was Jointly /
indicted with the defendant Perry |
Bayne and others for the crime herein |
charged, and the witness Roberts IN,
before he had gene into his defense,
was, on molten Of the Prosecuting At |
sorney, discharged that he might bs a |
witness for the Territory against the |
defendant in this case. IL you believe |
that Roberi son vas induced TO BIS |
oome witness by the promise Of i'm |
inunity FROM punishment herein, in case |
he disclosed Who his confederates wers,
or in case he implicated some one else
in the crime, then yen should take such |
fact into consideration in determining |
the weight which ought to be given to |
his testimony thus ostained and given |
under the influence Of such promise |
and dismissal.
IL is for you exclusively. aud not for /
me, to say whether any evidence in the |
c,se is credible hence ii is also for you,
and not for me, to say whether any of |
the material part of Samuel Robert
sons testimony is confirmed BY other |
credible evidences. II you should find |
that no portion Of that testimony ms |
terisl to the issue of defendants guilt |
ID confirmed or oorroborated by other
trustworthy evidence, then ADVISE You |
to acquit the defendant. Bat this ad- /
vice is not TO be considered given unless |
you first find that no portion OF RIb-
ertson's testimony tending to involve /
confirmation from other evidescs be- |
iieved by you, or by facts and circum-
stances prov d on the trial. Moreover
this advice is only by way Of caution.
and you are not Obliged t. follow 1t. |
Even il you find Robertson's testimony |
utterly uncorroborated, you ought not |
TO found a verdict upon my Advice. IN |
lees to do 90 comedies with your owe |
best Judgment. For it is the province |
Of the jury and not Of the jadys TO pass
upon the facts and the credibillty of the |
evidence. The prosecution has right |
and so has the defense TO have you de |
eide upon all the evidences offered .vheth-
er for or against him, and your duty |
requires you 80 decide the case accord |
ing to your own convi,tion produced by |
that evidence. You cannot legally rid |
yourselves of il. You have no right TO |
shirk it by inconsideratsly yielding 10 |
the advice of the judge.
One of the modes Of impeaching q |
witness IL by showing that be has made |
statements out of court ct variance |
with his statements on the witness |
stand: and IL the jury believe, from |
the evidence, that the witness, Samuel |
Robertson, has made statements at an |
other time and place at variance with |
his evidence in this case, regarding any |
material matter testified 70 by him, then |
il IL the province Of the jury to deter |
mine 10 what extent this fact tends to |
inpeach either his memory or bis credi |
bIlity or detracts frem the weight which |
ought 20 be given 10 bis testimony.
TIE credit of witness may be i'm |
pelched by proof that he has made |
statements out of court contrary 20 |
what be has testified on the trial. and II |
you beiisve from the evidence that the |
witness, Samuel Robertson, made state |
ments out Of court on the Sunday even |
ing before the shooting. 10 Robert Will |
son and John Wolf. or TO Thomas Ms |
her, Jshn Smith and John Mclaughlin.
in the county Jail afser his arrest. con-
trary TO what he has sworn upon the
trial ~ to any material matter. then /
these contradictory statements would |
tend to impsach the witness, and the
Jury would be justified in reiectinR bis
entire testimony II. from all the other |
evidence in the case, they believe such |
testimony to be vilfully antfue.
II you shall find that any vitasss has
A. A. 49,