Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1893-09-29

ose proximity TO the business parts OF 1ialloweu
I'd Augusta This is rare opportunity TOR one
moderate eireu ms. AZ ces 10 acquire pleasHtt
ONE at a low price Must be sold 10 settls In.
tate. Inquire Of james iiersom in Augusta. OF
Re sse.eIisfru 2 III II would Be entertained BY
reasonable aud conscientious man; such
doubt that the reason for ii can be examine
and discussed"
This case is submitted to you on circum
etsntial evidence. No one has testified I
seeing the crime committed which 10 charge
in the Indictment. hut the government hs
presented here evidence CT certain fact
from which il claims that the inference
/ irresistible aud conclusive that this defend
ant, either alone or with Wakefield, kille
Bleun. Now person may be convicted Law
fully on circumst ant,al as well a. upon drec
evidence. Indeed it 10 the more usual hin
of evidence in criminal trials ~ il often hs,
pens, than otherwise, that there are n
Witnesses who testify that they have aetna
and direct knowledge of the thing TO b
proved. The force Of such evidence dc
| ponds on its character. Sometimes the in
f.rence to BE- drawn from circumstanc
I is direct amounting to almost certain proof
| For instance hou,e Is robbed on certAi
night: a stranger is sen fleeiog from III
! h ,use on that hight and be IL subsequent
! found with the stolen property In bis pc,
session. In that case in. the absence of al,
! coB,radictnS and controlling explanation,
| jury mngat xel! infcr with strong assnrand
| that the man robbed the house In oths
cAses the GO i.ciusion is got 40 easy to dras
! A man may have been seen tleeinV from I'll
house, but bis identity may depend on ID
srription ard numerous other facts whit
! reL,ler IL more Glliicdlt 10 connect him I'D
the crime.
Now verdict of guilty in this case mu.
be reached if ut all through infsrences fror
circumstances and other facts proved
Therefor every fact that you believe to b
So essential That without II you cannot reacl
The conclusion of guilt, must itself b,
proved as eonclasively and with he sam
weight of evidence as if 1t were the msit
fact in issue--such facts must, every on
be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. L.
cases depending On circumstaniisl evidenc,
it is usual, aD,! il has been the case in thi,
trial. for many facts to be testified to no
strictly necessary to prove the main fac
but d,ened more or less relevant and bay
Jag some tendency to rebut n contrary pre-
sumption. Such facts, in recent chsrx'
u
.tantiai evidence, the Judge called hclpfu
facts as distinguished from es.entisl facts
If merely helpful facts should not be prove,
beg ond reasonable doubt, that would NJ
pre- vent your drawing conclusion of guilt
from the other and essential facts il In you
judgment they are sufficient AMI are salts
fsctorily proven.
Or TO illustrate further, suppose tn,
person mentioned in my illustration b III no
been seen nor the stolen property found on
him but tracks had been discovered to and
from . win,lo~ in the house robbed, whicr
had been forced. This would prove moth
ing rs to identify. But suppose the s,acL 4
to ne traced to and from the residence 81
A. and were of the siz, OF As boot. Thi.
would raise an inference thst the tracks
we're As. But IL 1t were sho~n that
other persons were in bis hoase that night
tha. would lessen the weight Of the inference.
But If /: were further shown that As boo
had = peculiar marx on the sole ~hich ~
actiy accounted for ike mark In the tSacL
it would strengthen the inference Of his
guilt. Yet il might be shown thst A. wsi
not out Of bis house that night ani that hi
bouts had been stolen out Of his room. Thii
would destroy the inference. This illus.
trstes the necessity Of considering all the
circumstances ami facts In connection with
each other.
In this Gaze the main fact 70 be proven "a
you, satisfaction, before ycn can conclude
that the defendant is goihy, 10 that he,
si'her slone OF acting With another, killed
Bl-nn nnlsvfuIly. To establish this GER
tai /, facts must necessarily be shown. /,
n,a., appear. for instance. thst Blenn VS.
killed unla~fuily. OF this the government
is bound to convince you beyond reason able
doubt. II Is contended BY defendant that
he was droyned By sccidens. The burden
doe. not shift To the defepdart. II u mt
for him 70 prove beyond reasonable donbt
thst Bi~nn vas accidentally drowned, but
for the government 10 prove that he vas IN
fact killed feioni0usly BY Silver. Or BY him
and another. The governments testimony
may be classified ~ follows:
1. Such ~ relates to Indications Of
Blenn's death By violence.
rConsinusd On I'd pags.J