The sun., 1893-03-23

ri Ss Ss S.y e sSnsidsf n ;S:. isss os! =
Tres. were not trsnsisns ps oF epSsmefal il their
siye rise 70 desire | that thsir reations fa
should be made durable. His marriage was
fsd made nS vss ssb GseT%n.a ssw ths
which his strong passion for the woman led
b bsy sSo To-
iiRs,ss she stS
S,.H 1h,s scheme was & Stoaehsa ana lsissnsd s f.
seisnaans %lie oRs very Sosty "s
adoption bound him and his parainour closer
together in a Partnsrship In criminal pro. PR.
Ss snS Of ss each ssk sss ae
eT"tions are sufficient to show the relevancy
OF the a the
upon the existence OF motives to get rid Of his
1t was mono the less relevant as indicative OF
this this genuine and powerful motive because y
that he, regarded marriage as n means TO an
staa emo, and tn, the marital relation as hnt light
ta,ned BY the skiiiu and secret use OF deadly
It II vas proner fer the jury to receive and to
Of ths defsndants harborng an Intention, ,un.
sroy ns'Sn the s of tho % Sesea. aGa to de-
state and elsewhere. whero any evidence is
considered to be admissiDle. II ustrn Ing the
husband and vile. where one is OF, on trial Tor the
sp shTEs o hs h was q ss
want or immaterial. to be considered upon thu
existence .aa's Of motive !. contribatea some
cause It tended 70 eiinrsto' that WEAKNESS
which otherwise 1t would possess from the
'si dseadsns nj %n1 for saoS S erns
u motion .s M Vas made to strike ont syidepss
Fowler to Mrs Potts, upon an occasion when
the defendant was In her room. md the denial
is that It tsndsc to throw dscreat de. UPON de-.
frndsnt a. indisstnG E biz having nystraeted IT
when the motion was, made and denied. the
lished the fact that the letter received
Ss r hsg %sr. snt s
dence. On both grounds tho mat ter Of erroris
ment that the defendant was preinticsd.
Certain hypothetical questions asked by the
testified for the people. were excluded. and
the error OF their exclusion is argued. Inas-
for the facts assumed By the S put, ess the
ruling was CORRECT % such question: TO be
ted. or which. being in conflict uron the svi.
dence. the jury are to pass upon
FAIRNEss OF RECORDER sMYTH.
Isee no reason for discussing any other MS.
rreIudlcial to the defendant. The charge of
the i Recorder was remarkably able IN It's ex
i the the EsrS scss 'iss crenm s
constructions. ons pointing iowa! d guilt and
the other toward innocence. in criminal cases.
favorable constrsetion:' ana. again. lie said said
to them TINT; before oiS the deiendant comla ee
s%t ioab
IN. District Attorney must establish to your
at Of "ah oIbs
counsel for the. ncc,,ssd only ind it n necessary
hds ers error the rsusa
quest. which was that the Jury should
always act upon tho presumption that the nc;
WITH that saa
9 Tns ssSdsr !om hS
hom % hc said that Il theSe ere? was AS uavnins
accept nV he esceptea @ aiFss sss
! TIE refusal to charge each request. THO par;
been fully covered and Its matter emphasized
by tho charge. and tho refusal to specifically
no error to the prejudice OF the defendant.
Upon the most careful consideration OF this
record and Of the questions raised by that
consideration. or by the counsel for the ap-
pellnnt. fail to discover the existence OF any
e, errors M and: IN my opinion. no
trial upon this indictment.
Some questions are raised and are discussed
in the appellants brief in relation to tho en-
pane ling OF Jurors. Some are covered by the
onlnion Of this court in People v. MeGonegal. |
lately handed down. and need 70 discu sion
here. The others suggest no error IN tho
rulings.
The judgment therefore. should be affirmed. |
All concur.