The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-08-13

defendant at the time of the alleged ad-
missions or confessions, and interroRated
him In regard TO the matters stated in their
testimony, with the purpose and intent to
obtain from the defendant admissions of
his guilt, and that interrogations were not
conducted with fairness toward the de.
fendant, and questions assuming his guilt
were not only put, but pressed and re.
peAted in various shapes, and il these
were made and persisted in to compel
him either directly or by implication 10
ayow something to his prejudice, you
may consider what was in fact said, how
far the defenda mt had an opportunity 10
explsin and state what he wished TO state,
whether the witness remembers the whole
OF the conversation, so as to give its fair
meaning, whether IL has been correctly re-
ported 10y the witness, and whether the tes-
timony of the witnesses does contain the
full and complete idea which the defend
ant intended TO convey OF his relation and
acts as physician toward the said Lille
Bordner; and If you should further find
that any Of said witnesses testites TO con-
versation with the defendant, alleged to
contain admissions or confessions after q
considerable period when said admissions
were had. or at the time of this trial had
their attention called to particular words
| in said conversation with the defendant
| as being important, and which are In fact
in said conversation, by persons Interest
ed in the prosecution of said case, you
will consider whether such words were
substituted for others, and what weight
| the testimony OF said witnesses TO said
| as to said confessions are en-
| titled TO. Considerable Of the evidence
upon which reliance for conviction Ia
based in this case, is claimed in argument
to be circumstautial. Where reliance for
conviction Is upon circumstantial evi.
| dence, IL 10 not necessary that the cir
cumstances should be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, unless II Is necessary
| link in a chain OF circumstances, which
chain Of circumstances is necessary to a
| conviction. person may be properly
| convicted by q large number Of clrcum-
| stances, no one of which alone Is estab-
lished beyond a reasonable doubt. The
State In this case however, claims that IL
| does not base Its reliance for conviction
upon circumstantial evidence alone.
Proof has been introduced before you
as to the character of the defendant; that
| proof, whether for or against his char
l acter, you should consider, weigh and ex-
anime az well as all the other proof In the
| case, and determine to what extent IL
tends to establish his good character. The
reasonable effect Of proof of good charac-
| ter is to raise presumption that the ac-
| cused was not likely to have committed
| the crime OF which he 10 charged. The
force OF this presumption depends upon
the strength OF the opposing evidence TO
| produce conviction of the truth OF the
| charge. Any evidence establishing the
| truth OF the charge, is OF such nature,
| and is not, upon the principle of reason
and good sense, To be overcome by the
| fact of good character, the latter will, OF
| course, be unavailing and immaterial.
| But the same will be true OF any other fact
or circumstance In the evidence, which
after receiving Its due weight, does not
altar the conclusion 10 be drawn from tho
| other evidence in the case. Good chsrac-
.t.l., -. "A
| is a circumstance bearing indirectly on
the question of the guilt of the accused,
which the jury are To consider In ascer-
| tanning the truth of the charge.
IL you find that on Friday, November
| %, 1880 the defendant sent telephone
vile, given by the defendant In the fc-
| titious name of Smith, for the said Schott
| to come up to Canton, and also a tele-
gram to said Charles Schott which had
been prepared TO be sent after her death
by an agreement between the defendant
| and said Schott, and signed by the fic-
| titious name of Smith, which telegram
contained false statement In regard to
the cause of the sickness and injury of
| said Lille Bordner, and II was understood
that the said Schott should notify the
parents of the said Lille Bordner of the
| true cause of her death, with view Of
conveying her body to the home OF her
parents, and II you find that said defend
ant and said Schott had sent the last
| mentioned telegram, in such fictitious
name, and containing said untrue state.
ment of the cause OF her sickness and
| injury, with view TO prevent the public
knowing the real cause Of her death, and
| to enable them to take the body
| home without discovery of the cause
| OF her death, and that said fret fictitious
message was only for the purpose of con-
| cealing here whereabouts while she was
L airL and ~ Won furthar And that tha aaId
| Lille Bordner before her death requested
| the said defendant TO take her body TO her
| parents, and TO conceal from the public
| the real cause of her death, and the said
l defendant and the said Schott sent said
l message and dispatch and conveyed said
| body home by the said defendant, taking
| her home In carriage, and believed they
| were the best methods of concealing the
cause of her sickness and death from the