St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-12-23


| Horton; second that this defendant alone
had motive for killing his wife: third, that
| the circumstances of the case demonstrate
| beyond all reasonable doubt that he did kill
her by drowning.
AS TO the opportunity, that VIII not prob
| ably be seriously questioned. However. the
evidence is before you and you can deter
mine that.
| AS to the motive for the deed, whatever it
| was. will now notice some of the claims
| made by the state and The defendant as 10
| what the evidence establishes.
The court proceeded to review the ep-
| idence leading up to the charge OF
adultery against Mrs. Horton: s.
There seems to be no reason not to believe
that this man Paquin did tell the defendant
this story concerning defendants wife, and
| 1t is immateral whether the story was
True or False.
| provided you believe from the evidence TINT
| the defendant in good faith believed it to be
true. and acted upon that belief in good
| faith afterwards Ii he did, then you should
| consider that fact upon the question whether
| defendants conduct afterwards towards his
| wife was that of q man who really felt him
| sell wronged by his wife; or, whether he
merely took advantage of the story to rid
| himself or his wife.
| The state claims that the defendant did
| not believe the stories about his wife's con-
| duct and finally that the defendants want
! or goou faith toward his wife is shown by
| the evidence that for over year prior 10
July. 1890, he entirely ceased to visit or cor
| respond with or support her in any way.
On the other hand, the defendant claims
that he acted in good faith tnroughout that
| he believed his wife had wronged him. He
| claims that his wife
Shielded tsae Man
| who he says, wronged her and him, and
| that it was because of this that they were
| not sooner reunited: that he bore his troubles
| i'll silence for many Years; that, in fine, he
| acted as any other man under like circum
| stances would have done. 1t is for you
] to judge from all the evidence in the case
| which of these two conflicting contentious
| be correct.
| The state CLAIMS that the evidence shows
| that as early as April or May, 1S9), this de-
! PENDANT and this Miss Van Vie had entered
lnto:aa engagement for marriage, and that is
claimed to be shown by defendants state
ment TO Mr.. Endsley, by the relations of the
| parties and their conduct towards each
| other, by the letter, which is testified to as
| being Miss Van Wie's handwriting The de-
| PENDANT admits that he and MissVanWie were
| warm personal friends; says that he had told
| her his troubles and that he was married
men, and that his relations with
| Miss Van VIE
| were only those which might exist-between
| any honorable man and viItuous woman He
| admits telling Mr. Endsley while he and Miss
| Van Vie had rooms at Endsley's, that he the
| defendant, and Miss Van Vie were soon to
/ be married, but he says that such statement
to Endsley was untrue, and was made to
| prevent inquisitive persons from prying into
| and criteising their conduct.
You must determine from all the evidence
| IN the ease what were the relations OF Miss
| Van Wie.and this defendant before and at
| the time OF the drowning, and what if any,
| value that relation, whatever you find it to
| have been, has as casting light on the de-
| PENDANTS conduct towards his lawful wife,
| Nellie VI. Horton.
| In connection with the relations between
| the defendant and Miss Van Vie, whatever
they were. | charge you that you should, if
| the evidence warrant 1t, give 1t an innocent
and lawful construction rather than sinful
! and unlawful construction. The preSumu
| ton of innocence and that all men and
| women act from right motives should al
| ways prevail unless the stern realities of the
| case force that presumption aside.
| The state claims that the defendant used
| efforts to lure
| His Wife Back
| to his control i'll order to effect by force that
| which he could not accomplish by divorce.
| On the other hand the defendant claims that
| his conduct and the testimony shows that
| while he asked first us to d divorce, yet that
| divorce was only contemplated upon the
idea that he could not be reconciled to his
| wife.
| AS to the circumstances surrounding the
| drowning. say to you, first, that unless you
| are satisfied from the evidence beyond rea-
| sonabie doubt thai this defendant was the
| guilty agent of his Wifes DEATH then il be-
| comes entirely immaterial what may have
| been his former relations to his wife. or what
may have been his relations to Miss Van
| We, or what may have been his conduct
| generally-wheIherg good or bad. With ref
! erence to the drowning the defendant has
testified in his own behalf and he is the
| only witness here testifying who saw the oe-
| currence.
The jury must reach their conclusion by
| the testimony you have heard from the wit
| ness stand, and
| From That Alone:
| therefore, you must not regard any statement
| VI fact made by either the attorney for the
state or by the attorneys for the defense.
| which are not based upon and proven by the
have been made; and IL the court in this
| charge or during this trial shall have stated
or referred to anything not proven, or omit
| ted to state anything that is proven. the jury
will correct me and be governed only by the
| proven facts.
Your personal opinions as to- facts not
proven cannot be properly considered as a
| basis of your verdict You may believe as
men, that certain facts exisl, but as jurors
you can only act upon the evidence intro
duced upon the trial; and from that, and
from that alone, you must form your YER
dict unaided and uuinfuenced by any opin-
ions or assumptions that are not formed
upon the evidence.
l charge you, that if you believe from the
evidence, beyond
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,
that this defendant did at this county, and
at this county, and about the Time stated in
the Indictment, kill the Nellie NJ Horton
named in the Indictment, by then and there
drowning her. the said Nellie NJ. Horton,
then and i'll that case you should find him
| guilty as charged.
But to warrant the conviction OF the de-
PENDANT Of the crime charged, the evidence
must be of that clear and satisfactory char
acter which, after q fair and thorough con-
sideration of the whole case, leaves your
| ind in hat fhot
reasonable aud conscientious men say that
| you feel to a moral certainty that defendant
is guilty of the crime as charged.
| Even though the evidence be so strong as
| to demonstrate the PROBABILITY of defendant
guilt, that will not be sufficient; nor is it suf-
| tcient that the evidence tending to establish
| the crime outweighs that tending to disprove
it. This is not question or probabilities
Or Suspicious,
| or preponderanee of evidence. The evidence
| taking it all together must satisfy the jury to
a moral certainty of defendants guilt. If il
| does not so satisfy you, then you must acquit
the defendant.
In closing this, for me. unusually lengthy
charge, let me again remind you of the SO
| lemnity OF the act which you are now about
| to perform.
Consider this case fairly. calmly, carefully.
| Consider all the evidence well and With alb
| solute impartiality.
If from all the evidence this mans inno-
cence appears, acquit him. 1t is his right and
your duty.
And although the evidence may have
| raised against him grave and dark suspi-
eions, yet if it do not satisfy your judgments
| and conseiences of his guilt beyond reason
able doubt, as have defined a reasonable
doubt to he, give him the benefit OF that
| doubt and aeQuit him.
/ But on the other hand,
If, After Fully
| considering all the evidence IN the case, you
| are convinced of the defendants guilt be
| yond a reasonable doubt say so in your YER
diet. For the consequences of that verdIci
! neither you nor l are resposible; for if the
defendant be guilty, he made those conse
quenees himself.
At the conclusion of the charge Mr..
Mum said: Il see you have moi
charged as to generalization while in
the water"
Judge Kelly added: II charge you
that if you ind that generalization was
! o0naaiuad of tho tinninr nuar IF tbo