Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-04-20

Apgfl Tenn. Jsdse Hall psssid1pg.

i Apgfl Tenn. Jadss Hall psssad1ps.
| g. T. 6fBvzns, Shsfi1.
II w. 8. CsoArs. Clerk.
L. T. CARLxfoH. County Attorney.
y. A. SnAIL. 6tenosfaphsf.
SATURDAY, April 18th.
Judge Hall charged the Jury in The case
Of Stats 70 Bickfcrd ct ais y fellows:
Gsaaenen Of IN Jsry:
One Of the greatest safeguards Of individ-
nal liberty. Of right and OF jasice under
the institutions Of this country 10 that every
individual charged with crime 10 shielded
with the presumptions Of innocence until It
10 ovesbo,n by testimony. The fact that
. person 10 accused Of crime. or that he has
been ind cied for crime BY the grand jury
should not weigh sgainss him on his trial.
Many persons have been wronsfully ac-
cused OF crime and vrongfully indicted.
Hence the law prctscts every indlvidusl
when put on trial with the presumption Of
innocence until all the evidence 10 presented
and he is proven guilty beyond any reason
sble presumption Of innocence; 90 that the
Jurors shsll feel an abiding conviction to a
moral certainty that the accused 10 guilty Of
the crire charged. The protection thus
siven by law TO . person accused Of crime
is not through tenderness for guilt or TO
shield crime but for the security Of inno-
csnee and individual rights and liberts, the
theory Of the law being that il were better
that guilt, now and then, should go unpun-
ished than that i: should be possible for the
innocent 4, sutYsr pnnisbment upsar ths
towns NJ Law.
In This c..s. the,eSo,e vou y,u., ha con.
vinced q. the euilt al The n,i.one,. in srch
vav that yon can no longsr reasor.hlv
presume them innocent unt,l All onsbIs
douht Of theiy gu;it l. ernalled from vour
minds before vou can return . verdict ~
"suiltv"
Nov vhs. 4. the ch.yya fo thi. ;ra;ct.
meuts The ,esnonsepts are ch.rusd v;,h
having committed the cyime of hn,yl.rv
which ia defined nv the sI.tnts
a being the breaking and entry of a hou.s
other th.n that belonging IN the accused
in he nioht time win intent Ia commit !.
felony therein nsysor. ha;no in tho hon.a
~ Tho t;ma r, I, conc;.e,v .,s,ad
ard ava,v m,te,;sI .va,mant ru.t
hs n,ovan "a vou, .st;sfsc,;on II /. not
deniad and Ia fulIv n,oven ,h,, hu,g,.,y
was Committed on The niobt ~ Mora,v tbe
9s5 d.y ~ Feh,c.,v thst the honss w,s
moi oniv hvohen hut entarad With salon;ou.
intent A. that The ;nvas,;g.t;on !. n.,.
yowad dow, Al f.r - Won sra co,cs,ned
Ia ,he opestion ~ tha p.rtv nv n.,tie. whn
committed tho cyime.
The,e ave fev cy;msa mo,s epo,mou,
than burolarv-.be ste.lthv invasion in the
nioht az a dwelling for nnrposes of crime
tho bury,sy n,en.,ed II NAV hs 4, .;larce
alarm nr a wi ,ess with yiolencs. ( when the
oceupsnts are w,apped in s,nmber So
s,craa has alw.vs been held the safety ~
sIeepinp hon,ehold that unt;l ,eesnt ve.rs
its yi,,sto,s have been deemed worthy of
death. and even now NAV he imprisoned for
I;fa abbopob di.cretion IL given IN the
cou,t to imprison for a term of Hvesrs.
This il the crime with whieh the prisone,s
AZ the bar stand charged. and upon whose
onilt or innocepce Won are IN mass.
That a burglary was committed Al
charged in the Indictment Ia fulIv proven
and ia not denied. That one Of The mis-
oners VIM. smith had knovIedge NJ the
burglary Ia moi denied. he even admits.
that he committed the act and when
arraivned nm the indictment pIe.d ouiltv
and he testifies to the details Of the crime.
The State claim. that this confsssion ia NOT
lrue. that slthouch VIM. Smith did have
knowledge of il ard did aid and abet III g
crime. that he WAS not in fact the one or
,hs enly one who entered the house but
that Bickford either sl,pe or with the Aid
Of the others broke and entered The house
and carried away the goods. In order 10
convict either Bickford or Cochyane under
this indictmen. YOU mus. be satisfisd
beyopd a reasonable doubt that he WAS
p,esent. actually or constructiyely assisting
In the burglary. These men are being
tried as principals for the substantive crime
| of burglary. and the State must prove as
| 10 each of the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt, before you can find him guilty, that
be was presen. and did the act or was
somey hare in the vicinity in some way
either ss pusrd to give warning Of danger.
| 10 assist in the operation in case OF attack
or alarm; to show the wsy TO the house or
rooms; to assist in carrying the tools or the
plunder or in some other way.
No.v ithstandipg VIM. Smiths plea
OF guilty and his testimony confessiuQ
the whole crime and denying the presence
or assistance of the others the States counsel
contends it is false so far as it exonerates
Bickford from being present and assisting
| in the crime, and so far IS it relieves Coeh-
| rsne from active psrticipation In il.
Was Bckfo.d present at or did he aid
ard abet the commission of this crime as
charged in the indictment? Was he present
oetuaiIv or eonstruettreigp Aetuaf presence
| means being bodily present at ,he precise
place designated. Constructive presence il
being near enough to the party operating or
| engaged in the perpetraii9n of the alleged
| crime or In such relation with him az to
give aid AID comfort If needed. Bicksord
denies ,ha. he WAS present in either sense
| First, was he actually present. The
State contends that he was and that the
proof is sufficient to warrsnt his conviction
AZ a lesdipg perpe,rator of the crime, an
xcu,l doer Of the burglary. What is the
evidence?
In calling attention to ii do not express
any op;nion AZ TO its weight, that is for you
| There sre several circumstances upon
which the county attorney relies TO prove
his scsual presence.
| Mrs. Cook. in whose room tie burglar
snnea,ed tsatiasd that sbe was awakened
about O'Clock in the morning Of the bur.
vlsrv ard saw a man in her room: that il
was a clear. moonlirh, night. that be held