The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1885-11-05

[StS 49, u 1t WAlIullys knowingly an
ne intention 81 taklag his life
49, Hnss satd }. K Walkup actual,
oleo tron the effects OF the pOiaoo - ~
ministered % him. II Won entertsin
\ reasonable doubt e % The exIrEence =
ny o. these facts you win acquit ~
X The rule requiring proof o
ne defeadant's guilt beyond 4 reason
aole doubt does not mean thai ever
INK IN the chain OF circumstance relieS
upon Dy the prosecution 20 essablish Ia
eetendanrs guilt shall be establIshed
out by i is meant that ever
AseA uuLh IN the chain OF
circumstances relied upon 10 estahIIsh
the defendants guilt, shall be 30 estah.
liShed and that the whole evidence When
considered together shall satiafv the
mind OF the jury beyond q reasonabIe
oonot that the defendant Il guilty.
a. a large and important part of the
evidence IN this case Il what Is known &c
expert testimony. being the opinions Of
physiciAns, based upon facts
assumed 70 be establiahed nv the
evidence. This class OF testimony
u reeoFted 70 from lecesslty, ana while
mot always - satisfactory as could be
desired, Il - the natue of thinRs the best
tnat can Do Obtained, and IL should be
cAreIu considered BY the Jury and
should be given all the right 70 which
II is entitled.
The amount Of reliance TO be placed
upon I, depends largely upon the char.
aceer Of tho witnesses examined, their
experience in the matters about
which they testify, their lntelII.
gence and learning, their ability 10
comprehend the matters about which
they are Intercepted, the ACCURACY of
their observations and kindred qualities.
1t IL proper also to consider, among 9th
er things, their professional standing
whether eminent or not; their manner
OF tesIifytng. whether clearly intelligent
~ or not; whether a. men who possess
clear and positive opinions which have
been reached by careful, independent,
Intellectual effort, or Is men when tested
~ cross-exAmlnation appear TO
have merely accepted and re-
peated the opinion of 9th
ers in whom they have confidence.
You will remember also that these
| opinions were given upon an assumed
state Of facts. II the evidence in the
case does not sustain the facts, and all
the facts, as assumed, the opinions are
worthless and ought TO be dIsregarded.
A large number Of hypothetical ques-
tio1s have been answered by these med.
Il - - ap0A e1O 0oo0L4PSlGu tnAt
the evidence IN the case establishes the
facts a. assumed in said questions. 1t
the evidence does not justify ouch
assumption, then their answers should
ALSO be disreRarded. If on the othei
hand all the facts as assumed in any
/ question propounded TO such experts are
established by the evidence in the case.
then the AnsWer 70 such questions be.
comes evidence to your consideration,
And Il 10 your duty 70 carefully consider
It IN your deliberations and give Il all
the weight which In your candid judg-
ment seems proper.
XII. We ali know from experience that
every act OF human life IL induced by
some pre-exlstlnK motive, and therefore,
whenever any act IL done, especially If
It be . crime. we expect 70 ind some ad-
| equato motive therefor on the part of the
person who commits such act, hence IN
the investigation Of crime the question
OF motive Il usually considered an i'm.
portant one. and the prosecution always
estAbltsh IL If possible, whether deemed
important or not 1tmBy sometimes &C.
cur that the motive $50 obscure and din.
cult to discover, and the offense charged,
and the defendants guilt thereof 90
easily established Is 70 make the Ques-
ton OF motive OF very little importance,
and again the evidence tending to show
the Defendants guilt Of the offence
charged may be such that In the absence
OF . motive Il would be impossible TO
eatlsfy the mind beyond q reasonable
doubt OF the defendants guilt. The i'm
portance Of establishing motive, there
fore depends upon the facts Of each par
ticulAr case. In this case Il IL claimed
by the prosecution that the marriage be-
tween the defendant and the deceased,
was wholly mercenary on her part
that abe was destitute Of that
affection for her husband which we
usually associate with marriage rela-
tons. that she believed her husband to
be wealthy, and consented to the mar
riage because she believed she would
thereby be of financial benefit to herself
and relatives, and that the immediate
motive which prompted her to do the
acts alleged was that she might receive
the one-hAlf Of her husbands property,
which would decend TO her as his widow.
As before stated 1t Is not necessary in
eVerv criminal case to establish
. motive ct all. It's presence
or absence IL however, Q circum-
with all the evidence In the case, wheth-
er there IL sufficient evidence to satisfac-
torily establish the defendants guilt re-
gardlees Of any motive. or not, and If not
whether an adequate motive has been es-
tabiished or not are questions for you to
determine from the evidence In the case.
In furtherance Of the idea Of motive the
state has offered evidence tending to
show large purchases Of dry goods by
defendant upon the credit of the de-
ceased which the state claims to
be unreasonable and extravagant and in
consistent with good faith toward the
defendants husband, upon this l deem
II proper to state 70 you that il was the
legal duty OF j. r. Walkup TO provide
for his wife whatever was reasonably
necessary 70 maintain her in the finRn-
ciai and social status which he occupied,
and II the purchases made by the de-
| PENDANT were such a. under the circum-
stances shown would seem reasonable
and not extravagant or suspicious, con-
siderIng the social and financial standing
| OF the deceased ~ the defendant under
stood 1t to be. then such purchases
will not Justify any inference Of wrong
full purpose or intent on her part, neith-
er will they justify such Inference, how
ever extraYaRant and unreasonable, if
they were made with the knowledge or
consent of the deceased.
XII. It Is claimed by the defendant
thst the deceased, j. r. WAlkup, was
hAbituAlly accustomed to the use of ar
senic as medicine and used it constant
| ly for years prior and continuously up to
and ImmedediatslY preceding his death.
and that If he died from the effects of
arsenlcal poisoning the poison was ad-
minlst0red by his own hand and not by
the hand Of the defendant, and the de-
fendant has offered evidence
tending TO show that the
deceased was in q physical condition
-. v-n,iI ~ -.I,owo1 hy The 49, IS
arsenic a. Q medicine, also evidence
tending to show thai he used arsoAic in
various forms for the relief of such con-
dition, and the defendant also CLAIMS
that the deceased had frequently taken
arsenic in such quantities as TO produce
the symptoms manifested by him during
| his last sickness. If you believe from
the evidence that ct the time and place
named In the information, the said j.
| r. WAlkup died from poison, and you
| further believe that such poison was ad.
ministered by himself ct any time
either - . medicine or for the purpose
/ Of suicide, then you will find the de-
PENDANT not guilty, or If upon full, fair
and candid confederation and examina-
ton Of all the evidence IN the case, you
entertain . reasonable doubt as to
whether the poison causing his death
was administered by the deceased or the
defendant or by come other person,
IL will be your duty TO give
the defendant the benefit OF
such doubt and acquit her. In detsrm-
lining whether or not the defendant adj
ministered the poison which is alleged
to have caused the death Ut the deceased
you may properly consider the opportu-
J mites, II any, which any person had 70
: administer the aArne and the motive on
interest Of such person or persons IL any
! 70 do 90, - shown by the evidence. also
{ the age, experience intelligence of the
: defendant, and her motive and intent, n
. any, 20 do the acss alleged against hel
D and all the other facts and circumstance
= Is disclosed by the evidence.
= II a. -