Waterbury evening Democrat., 1893-06-21

ment where he dropped it Monday night. He congratulated the jury upon the near approach of the end. The counsel who opened the cause for the defence said mo- tive was part of the governments case, but the speaker said this was not so, al though the consideration of motive had weight in elucidating the facts in the case Motives, however, are neither adequate nor even tolerable when considered in connection with a crime. The motives of mankind are as in scrutable as are the ways of divine Provi- dence. It does afford satisfaction to our reasoning to have discovered that there were unfortunate conditionsin that family from which we can suspect even the malice existing. 1 have called your attention to the way in which they lived under the same roof It impresses me deeply as I am sure it will you. The malice was all before the fact, the wickedness, the in grat- itude had gone on under that roof for many, many months.
 Mir Knowlton then proceeded to discuss the murder of MT. Borden, which he argued might have been induced by the fact that he was the only person who would know Lizzie killed Mrs. Borden. He detailed MT. Borden's action on the morning of the murder till he was left alone with the prisoner and emphasized the fact that she left her ironing unfin-
 
 Reading her varying explanations of her conduct at the time of the crime, he argued that they were incredible. Rubin skis story was indefinite, and Medley's story refuted defendants alibi. The pris- oner watched Mir. Knowlton fxedly during his argument.
 Mir. Knowton argued that the silk dress produced by the defendant was not the dress worn at the time of the murder as 1l< 1>xvM n1hn oV,A nr Bowen. The first search was in { sufficient but put defendant on her guard, and Saturdays thorough search failed to disclose the dress, therefore he claimed ! that it was concealed. Paper would have protected defendants person and burnt paper was found in the stove. The two versions of the burning of de- | fendant's dress were irreconcilable. De- \ fendant's conduct since that time was dis cussed and Mrs. Reagan's story was declared to be true. The production of a hatchet was no part of the governments case, but | it was a part of it's duty to produce all it | knew bearing on the case.
 MT. Knowltou reviewed at length the ! evidence as to the handleless hatchet and | discussed it's bearing on the case, dwelling | on the significance of its fitting the wounds and being broken short as if by \ design.
 After discussing again the matter of the note, he briefly but powerfully summa- rized his entire argument, claimed that the defence amounted to nothing, and closed with an eloquent appeal to the | jury to decide as their consciences should direct.
 When the court resumed it's session in the afternoon, the defendant was given an innocent, but will leave my case in your | hands and with my c0nnSaI Justice Dewey then charged the jury. He told them to disregard previous hear ings, and defined the different degrees of | murder. He stated the presumption of | innocence, which was increased by de- fendant's character. There must be a real and operative motive.
 Judge Dewey charged the jury to weigh the evidence so ss to see whether defend ants permanent state of mind showed a @ motive for the crimes. Every materia ! allegation in the indictment must be | proved beyond reasonable doubt, that is, | to 8 moral certainty.
 He compared direct and circumstantial evidence, and said that failure to prove an essential fact would be fatal, but failure to prove helpful fact might not be.
 Lizzie's statements about the note were discussed at length, and he said they must
 be satisfied they were false. Every fact
 proved must be reas onably consistent with guilt.
 The government did not show that any
 body else had the opportunity to conlnit
 the crime, but must prove defendant com
 mitted it. The jury must reason as to the ef-
 fects of defendants conduct and statements
 They were not to conclude by expert testi-
 mony. but were to apply to it a reasonable
 judgment. They might convict if satisfied
 the act was done by another party, bu
 that defendant was present, aiding and
 abetting. The fact that defendant did not
 testify should not influence them against
 her.
 The jury was cautioned against notic
 ing in any way the fact that defendant
 did not take the stand.
 The court said the burden of proof is or
 the government and the defendant is uo
 obliged to shoulder any of it. The jur!
 was not to deal with the evidence in {
 captious spirit. If not legally guilty you | aSo to say so. The court said it was fo l iHe jury to say whether ill all the dealing