Mexico weekly ledger., 1889-11-21

Robinson. for the defense, followed.
Nat Dryden, for the State, closed
the argument and the jury retired
for deliberation.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE STATE.
The Court instructs the jury that
in a criminal case the State of
Missouri, under the law, cannot
take and read depositions against a
defendant charged with crime; that
rape is the felonious carnal knowl-
edge of a female, torcibly and
against her will and where threats
of personal violence are made to
overcome her will, and she believes
that her person is in great danger
from such threats, and is induced
thereby TO submit to the will of the
person making such threats and he
has 4 j with her under such
circumstances then the law con-
slders such carnaI knowledge as
having been forclbly had and
against the will of the female.
And ifthe jury in this case believe,
from all the evidence in this cause,
that the defendant compelled the
prosecuting witness, by threats of
personal violence, to submit her
person to him in x * and
against her will, and that she sub
mitted, through fear of great vio-
lence or death, then the jury
should find the defendant guilty.
That in considering what the de-
fendant said after the alleged act
they must consider it altogether
He is entitled to the benefit of
what he said for himself, it true, as
is the State to the benefit of what
he said against himself in any con-
versation proved by the State;
what he said against himself the
law presumes to be true, because
against himself; but what he said
for himself the jury is not bound to
believe, because said in converse
ton proved by the State; they may
believe or disbelieve it, as it may
be shown to be true or false, by the
evidence in the case.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DEFENDANT.
The Court instrncts the jury
that the law presumes the defend
ant innocent of the crime where
with he stands charged, and before
he can be convicted it devolves on
the State not only to rebut this pre-
sumption by competent and credi-
tls testimony, but the State must
go further and establish his guilt,
by testimony in the case, to the
satisfaction OF the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. And in passing
on the case and arriving at ver-
dict the jurors ought to take into
consideration the reasonableness or
unreasonapleness of the conduct OF
the prosecuting witness and the
defendant when taken in connection
with the truth or falsity Of the
charge contained in the indictment
and all other facts and circumstan-
ces detailed in evidence in the case
And if,after the consideration of all
such facts and circumstances, the
jurors entertain a reasonable doubt
as to whether the defendant is gull
ty of the charge contained in the
Indictment, they should give him
the benefit of such doubt and fad
him not guilty.
The Court instructs the jury that
they ought to determine this csse
solely from the evidence adduced
in the case; and in arriyIng at 6
conclusion as to whether the de.
fendant is guilty or innocent OF the
offense charged in the indictment
they should not suffer their mind:
to be Influenced by the prejudice
which men naturally entertain
against the offense charged, bu
before they can find the defend
ant guilty, their minds should bt
convinced beyond reasonable
doubt, solely by the testimony il
the case.
THE COURTS INSTRUCTIONS.
The defendant in this cause Ii
charged with the crime of rape
alleged IN the indictment to hav'
been committed by him upon
woman, one Bette sira, in tn
county of Montgomery and Stat
of Missouri, on tine 9th day O
| November, 1888. And the jury
instructed that if they believe
/ from the evidence in the caus
and beyond a reasonable doubt
| that the defendant, on or about tn
5th of Nov, 1888, in the county
Montgomery and State OF Missouri
did forcibly ravish said Bette Sir
they will find defendant guilt,
as charged, and assess his punisl
, ment at death or imprisonment j
4 the peutentiazy not Less than fiy