Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1889-12-19

haul the furniture or even that il was Burke
who rented the cottage Mr., Forrest closed his
speech with an appeal 10 the jury To acQuit his
clients because nothing had been proved
against them beyond reason able doubt
CHICAGO, Dec. i4-In the Cronin case yes.
terday Judge Longenecfer made the closing
speech, IN which he briefly reviewed the les
timony and remarks Of the defendants attor.
neys, and Ia his remarks said 10 the jury: 1T
you believe that my associates and myself have
conspired 10 send the defendants 10 the gal
lows by manufacturing evidence, il you believe
IT, IL is your holy duty TO acqut the i've
men sitting there and recommend that the
members OF the prosecution be indicted
and tried for conspiracy TO commit murder.
Why, II the people believed il, they should take
me TO the nearest lamp post and hans me with.
out court or jury. Do you think would put on "a
witness whose story | didn't believer DO you
think would fix up a story TO hang these menu
Gentlemen, before God l had rather have my
arms torn from my body than to engage in such
villainy.h In closing the States Attorney said
'You are not here to acquit guilty men or con
Wet innocent ones, You are here TO do your
duty as honorable honest men"
Judge Mcconnell Immediately began tho
reading of his charge TO the jury. The charge
was very elaborate and fair to both sides lie
began by saying that the jury were the Judges
of the law as wel as of the facts In this case
He then gave the legal definition of the crime
murder lis punishment as provided by
the statutes Of the State Of Illinois, the law
as II is applied to an accessory, the pre-.
sumption Of innocence and the theory OF
a reasonable doubt the suiiciency OF circum.
stantial evidence TO satisfy the jury Of the guilt
of the defendants and said that in giving weight
to the evidence MS 10 the manner and cause OF
death the jury must be satisfied beyond a rca
sonable doubt that death occurred as charged in
the indictment
The jury must enter upon the consideration
OF each circumstance proven, having in their
minds the presumption Of innocence OF each Of
the defendants, and il such fact or circum
stance can be explained consistently with the
innocence of the accused it is their duty 10 SO
explain 1t. ANY circumstance which is essen.
tial TO conclusion of guilt against the defend
ants, or either Of them, should be established
beyond all reasonable doubt aud to Il moral GER
tainty before il can be used by the jury against
the defendants.
In regard to Beggs the Judge said the fact
that Beggs was presiding officer Of Camp 20 Is
not circumstance standing alone tending 70
establish his guilt OF the crime charged in the
indictment in this case. And rs there is no evil
dence In this case that any overt act was com
mitted by the defendant Beggs in the com
mission Of the alleged murder charged
in the indictment in this case. therefore, unless
IL is established that conspiracy was entered
into TO commit the murder charged in said in.
dictment. to which conspiracy the said Beggs
was party, he should be acquitted.
The jury must not disregard the testimony OF
witnesses where IL appears To be fair, and not
unreasonable or unnatural. and where they
have not been In any manner lmpeached. All
the evidence must be considered and a verdict
rendered In accordance with It's weight. II the
jury believe from the evidence In this cage, be
yond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants,
OF any of them, conspircd ard agreed
together. or with others, to kin and murder
Patrick Henry Cronin, and that In pursuance
and furtherance of that common design and by
member or members OF such conspiracy the
said Patrick Henry Cronin was killed
and murdered IN manner and form as
charged in the indictment in this case,
then such of these defendants, II any,
are guilty OF the murder, whether the identity
OF the individual doing the killing be estab-
lished or not or whether such defendants were
present at the time Of the killing or not.
Under the charge OF conspiracy against any of
the defendants to commit murder, il mast be
proven beyond every reasonable doubt that such
defendant combined with one or more persons
in the common purpose ana with the common
design to murder the deceased before you will
be justified in believing that the conspiracy ex
listed as charged against him. The burden OF
proof rests upon the prosecution and IL is re-
quired TO prove beyond all reasonable doubt
that the defendants. and not somebody else,
committed the crime charged in the indict-
ment.
The evidence on both sides must be oOnsid
cred without any feeling OF resentment or re
venge, and IL the jury tinds hat the evidence In
this case fails to show any motive on the part
OF the defendant to commit the crime charged
against him. then this Is a Circumstance in
favor Of his innocence which the jury ought TO
consider In connection with an the other evil
" he In arpiN at "A N
considering the case, however the jury are not
20 go beyond the evidence to hunt up doubts,
nor must they entertain such doubts as are
merely ehimerieal or conjrctured. a doubt TO
Justify al acquittal must be reasonable,
and 1t must arise from candid and i'm.
partial investigation Of all the evidence Ia the
case. and unless it is such that were the same
Kind of doubt interpoeed In the graver transac.
tions OF life it would cause "a reasonable and
prudent man to hesitate and pause, il is nsufi.
cient to authorize a verdict OF not guilty II,
after considering all the evidence, you can
say you have an abiding conviction OF the truth
OF the charge, you are satisfied beyond q reason
able doubt.
In this case the jury may, as in their judg
ment the evidence warrants, find any or all OF
the defendants guilty or any or all OF them not
guilty; and il in their judgment the evidence
warrants they may, in case they find the defend
ants or any of them. guilt fix the same penalty
for all the defendants found guilty, or different
penalties for the different defendants found
guilty. And in case they find the defendants,
or any OF them, guilty OF murder they should fix
the penalty either at death or at imprisonment
for life in the penitentiary, or at Imprisonment
in the penitentiary for term Of any number Of
years not less than fourteen.
Att o'clock the case was given to the jury
and they retired for consultation No verdict
being reached at 10 o'clock court adjourned.
CHICAGO, Dee 18.-No verdict was reached
yesterday, but early this morning 1t was re-
ported that she jury after elaboration OF
forty. eight hours, had voted that Daniel Cough
lin. Martin Burke, Patrick OSullivan, John T..
Beggs and John Kunze were guilty of the
murder of DIR. Patrick Henry Cronin, and
that the three former should hang, Beggs
be imprisoned for life and Kunze for
twenty-five years 1t is more than likely good
deal of it is conjecture, as the jury is closely
guarded and leak is almost impossible. All
the morning papers say that probably an agree