The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1892-03-11
intent at the time Of taking, and by SO

="
large upon the range in this country Is
primae facially the property Of, and in
the possession of the person whose
brand it bears, and if another should
subsequently find him, and take him
and place his brand upon him and then
allow him to roam at will upon the
range, he then and thereby becomes
primae facially the property of, and in
the possession OF the person whose
brand was last placed upon him, and
should the evidence convince you beyond
u reasonable doubt that Mr.. Davis was
the owner OF the steer in controversy,
and that at a time when he was thus the
owner. the defendants placed Their
brand upon him, that fact is q circ'lm
stance for your consideration III deter
mining their guilt or Innocence.
Should you find from the evidence be-
yond a reasonable doubt that the steer
described in the Indictment was at ak
tunes the property OF the complaining
witness Mr.. Davis, and that he was rum
nlng at large and unattended upon the
range in this county and state, bearing
upon his right side the brand OF the
prosecuting witness, to-wlt, the spear or
harpoon brand, and that at such time
the defendants by fraud and stealth
took said steer and placed their brand
upon the left side OF said steer, with the
intent at tie time and by SO dong, to
appropriate said property to their own
use, and that they did SO appropriate
him, without making an effort to ascer-
tain the owner, and in the manner al
legged in the Indictment, they are guilty
of larceny, and if the value Of the prop
erty when taken exceeds twenty dollars
they are guilty OF grand larceny as
charged in the indictment, and If
the value OF the property when stolen,
should you find beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendants are guilty OF
the larceny OF the steer, was $50 or less,
they would in that event be guilty oi
petit larceny, and therefore the value o!
the property becomes an important
question in the determination OF this
case, and it will be necessary should you
find a verdict for the state, to ascertain
the value OF this property.
Witnesses have been introduced and
sworn who have testified concerning the
value OF the steer incontroversy at the
time it was taken and | instruct you
Gentlemen OF the Jury, that you are not
bound by the evidence OF any witness OF
witnesses though such evidence Ee un
disputed, yet YOU Are not entitled tc
| wholly disregard it unless you believe
| from the evidence and circumstances O
the case and from a description OF tht
property that it Is unworth of consider
alton, and will say that you have {
| right IN that regard to exercise you
Judgement, your experience and YOU
| understanding and knowledge concern
ing evidence OF that character, ant
bring it to bear upon it in determining
| its force and effect.
Witnesses are allowed to testify as tt
| the value OF personal property in this
state, and other property, and that class
| OF evidence partakes OF the nature OF ex
pert testimony, upon the presumption
| that the persons who thus testify have
| a knowledge which is superior to tina
OF persons engaged in different avoca
tions OF life; it is opinion evidence, anc
| ic lil.a oIl otIar -iIapca f,r 4ba corc;, RI
ration and determination of the jury
do not know that l care to instruct
you further upon this subject further
than that these defendants are pre-
sumed to be innocent until their gull
has been established by competent evi
dence beyond a reasonable doubt, anc
that presumption is with them at th'
beginning OF the trial and remains will
them throughout, and until it has beer
overcome by competent evidence, ant
until their guilt has been established
beyond Il reasonable doubt as defined
III these instructions.
There is some evidence OF clrcum
stances IN this case which is competen
evidence and is for your consideration
| and determination but before a defend
ant can be CONVICTED upon the evidenc,
OF circumstances alone, those circunl
stances must all concur and point di
rectly toward the guilt OF the defendant
| and be OF such Il character that it can
not be explained on any other reason
able hypothesis than that of guilt OF th
defendant.
A motion was made at the time th
| State rested its case, by counsel for de
| fendants, that the court advise you tx
find q verdict OF mot guilty"
That motion at that time was over
ruled, but was again renewed after th'
entire testimony was in, and both th,
state and the defendants had restet
their case, and upon that motion,
withheld my ruling.
Inow believe it to be my duty to say
to you that l am OF the opinion thai
their motion should be sustained, anc
that you should be advised to find {
verdict OF mot guilty. However, 20,
are not bound by the advice Of thecourt
in an action OF this character On {
motion OF this kind The facts ar
wholly, exclusively and peculiarly TO
your consideration and for your deter
mination.
| You are the sole and exclusive judge
OF the credibillty OF the witnesses, ant
OF the weight and suficiencv OF the evi
dence, to take into consideration the in
terest OF the various witnesses who hav
testified here before you, ii the same ap
pears from the evidencs, and I lnstruc
you that the defendants are interested
witnesses. and yet they have a right t,
testify in their own behalf in court il
| this state in which they are made de
PENDANTS in a criminal proceeding, an,
their evidence is for your consideration
and determination together with al
other evidence in the case.