Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1886-08-22
CHARGE TO THE JURY
By Hon. Henry Sioddard, Presiding
Judge in the Boycott Case.

ven county, July term. 1856. four
members of the New Haven Typo
graphical Union were tried for "con-
spiracy," and the charge of Judge
Ntoddard to the ,jury0ttactod much
attention for its sound and fearless
exposition Of law. As it's length
prccludcs its publication in full in a
single issue Of the WoEKNEN'S AD-
IocATE, We shall print it in weekly
InStaIlmcnts Of about Il column
each,
The count room was crowded to
It's fullest capacity on the morning
of July Eth, 1856, by an attentive
audience, among whom were many
prominent labor rrIormors, lawyers
and representatives Of New IIaven's
bo"rgcojSic. Unfortunately, per-
haps, the intelligence of the audi
nce was confined to the portion of
the assomblage outside the jury box,
for, Notwithstanding the learned
Judges charge, the jury brought in
verdict Of "guilty' against all but
one of the defendants. Notice of
appeal was Immediately given, and
the case will be reviewed by the Su-
prcme Court of Errors.
At precisely ten o'clock Judge
Stoddard arose and said:
GENTLEMAN or THE JURY:
In the trial Of criminal cases the bur
den of proof is upon the State to cstab-
liSil every element Of the crime charged.
And the State must prove every element
of the crime charged 10y evidence that
satisfies the minds Of the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt, Upon that subject
am requested to charge you II, follows:
"The jury in considering this case
should bear in mind that in order to con
Wet the accused they must find beyond
a reasonable doubt that there was Il Grim
inal combination. In weighing the evil
| dence they must consider whether re-
| marks that may have been used by indi-
VldualS are fairly to he considered as in
dicating the settled pupose of a combina-
ton, or were only casual remarks arising
from irritation or ont Of the heat of con
troversy.'
That is correct statement of the law.
In the case at bar, the accused, Ben
jamin F, GIidden, David r. Mcnamara,
Thomas F. Mulcahy and J. Frederick
Busche stand charged with criminalIy
conspiring together with others. It is
therefore necessary for the State to
| prove that one or more of the accused
unlawfuly and criminally conspircd
with some other person or persons; and
even if one or more of the accused per-
sons were proved guilty of a separate or
distinct crime committed by himself
| alone, and without the unlawful combi-
nation, confederation and conspiracy
with another or others, there must be an
arquittah The unlawful conspiracy is
| the giS; and essence Of the alleged crime,
and all acts and things done in pursu-
ance Of such conspiracy or to carry tie
same into effect, are matters of aggrava-
ton not necessary to be proved to war,
rant verdict of guilty.
The alleged offences and crimes Of the
accused are stated in the information in
| six different counts. In some of those
counts offences are charged which are
distinct from the offences charged in
other counts; and as it is legally possible
that some one or all of the accused may
be found guilty upon some and not guilty
! upon other counts, and some one or more
of the accused may be found guilty upon
each count and the rest of the accused
found not guilty upon the same count, it
may become necessary in your verdict
to distinguish the particular person found
guilty or not guilty. together with the
particular counts upon which they shall
be found guilty or not guilty. In taking
the verdict, therefore, the clerk will call
the names of the accused separately. and,
if should be convenient the clerk will
also refer to the separate counts.
will now state in general way the
substance of the charge in the several
counts, and hereafter charge you more
in detail and specifically as to the mat
tiers, acts and things necessary to he
! proved to establish the criminal offence
under the several counts.
The first count charges the accused,