Eureka weekly sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1887-1902, 1889-05-25

BY private letter from . gentleman In
the western part Of the State, we learn
that 9 report Is being circulated that the
jury In the Charley Lsdd case brought In
g verdict Of Acquiital based on the in
structions Of Judge Fitzgerald. We are
Of the opinion that the Judges instruo
lions 70 the jury had but little 70 do with
the making up Of their verdict.
His instruction. ss will be seen from
the following, Is g plain, positive and d.
rect statement based on the facts proved
in cOur. that Lsdd was guilty Of grand
larceny:
The Court instructs the Jury: That the
defendant, Charles W. Laid. is charged In
this indictment with the crime OF grand
larceny, alleged 10 have been committed
10 Eureka county. State Of Nevada. on or
about the goth day Of August, 1883, by
fe~loniously stealing. taking and carrying
away about twenty-six pounds Of lead,
silver and gold bullion, the property Of
the Eureka Consolidated Mining Com
pany, Of the alleged value Of $500.
Grand larceny Is defined by statute as
follows: Every person who shall feloni-
ously steal, take and carry away, lead or
drive away the personal goods or property
Of another, OF the value Of $50 or more,
shall be deemed guilty Of grand larceny.
and upon conviction thereof shall be pun.
ished by imprisonment In the State
Prison for any term not less than one year
nor more than fourteen years.
The Court further charges you, gentle
men Of the jury, that II you find from the
evidence in this case that the defendant,
on or about the time charged In the in
dictment. at the county Of Eureka.
State OF Nevada, did steal. take and
carry away from the refinery Of the
Eurets Consolidated Mining Company,
the personal property named in said in
dictment, of the value Of $50 or more, the
property OF the said Eureka Consolidated
Mining Company. with the intent 10 con-
vert the same to his own use, and deprive
the owner thereof, and that the said Eu.
reka Consolidated Mining Company was
at the date OF such alleged stealing, tax.
ing and carrying away, q corporation or
gsniEed and existing under the laws OF the
State OF California, and doing business in
said county and State OF Nevada, then you
will find the defendant guilty.
How any honest juror. with that i%nstruc-
ton given by the Court and the facts
proved In the case, could scquit Lsdd, is
beyond comprehension. The Court re-
jected every instruction offered by the de-
Tense that indicated that the facts proved
In court showed enlightenment and not
larceny, and on the contrary positively
instructed that the facts testified TO in
showed grand larceny. SO the jury
had 70 disbelieve the facts testified to in
court or defy and disregard the instruc-
tions given by the Court In order to acquit
Lsdd. How could they disbelieve the
was no contradiction, Ladd not daring 10
take the stand TO deny them
The District Attorney tells us the Court
ell OF the States evidence and
gave good and unmistskAble instructions;
and we say, Notwithstanding this, q jury
No, gentlemen Of the jury" the re-
sponsibility for this scquittal Is on YOU,
and IL is untrue and unjust for either you.
or E" any other" 30 sndesvor TO shift this
burden Of responsibility from you to an
II would seem that the trickery, fraud
and cunning Of this case 10 not to stop
with even the iniquitous verdict OF 80.
Let him who goes so far out OF
his way and makes such efforts to cover
mp crime and shield the criminal, give an
and pure motive for his extraordi-
nary conduct. and not sneakingly and cow
ardly endeayor to put the blame where 10
does not belong.