The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1894-06-08

all the evidence-that of good char
acter included-the jury entertain a |
reasonable doubt of his guilt they
must acQuit him.
Good character, when proved. is a |
fact in the case which may tend in a |
greater or less degree to establish in
nocence, and it is not to be put to one |
side by the jury in order first to as
certain whether the other evidence
considered by itself does not establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
VS..
WILLIAM CONWAY
Defendants requests.
Cd. There is no evidence to show
that the spots upon the shirt which
lay upon the bed of the room in the
SchwartZenbach house were or are
blood, unless it be the color or appear
ance: and you are instructed that you
have no right to assume that they
are human blood merely be-
cause it may appear to you to be the
same color as the color Of blood even if
yOubelieve the color to be that of
blood.
Sd. Evidence has been introduced
tending to show that the witness
Empey was paid money to absent
himself from the state to avoid testi-
flying, and on this point you are in
structed that there is no evidence
tending to connect the defendant
Conway with that transaction, and
therefore his rights ought not to be
prejudiced by reason of it.
4th. On the matter of Employs be-
ing paid money TO got away to avoid
giving testimony, you are instructed
that William and Byron Hughes are
not on trial before you, and their con-
duct is not to be considered by you to
the prejudice Of the defendant, and
no matter what you may think of the
conduct of others you are to consider
this testimony only as it bears on the
conduct. motive and character of the
witness Empey, and the weight to be
given to his testimony.
9TH. The transactions between the
witnessEmpey and William and Byron
Hughes and the parties at Lincoln,
Nebraska, can be considered only so
far as they may throw light upon the
conduct and character Of the witness
Empey to effect his credibility as a
witness. The defendent Conway is
not shown in any manner connected
Herewith, and therefore nothing
therein can be considered to his pre-
JUDGE.
It'll If you believe that the wit
ness Empey, before he was called as a
witness on this trial, corruptly offer
ed, for consideration, to absent
himself, to avoid testifying, or that
he corruptly offered for cOnsidera
ton, to testify materially different
from what he did testify, then you
are to consider his conduct in this
Sth. If you believe that the wit
ness Empey accepted money, upon an
agreement to absent himself from the
SUotUC, w dNO1d UCoUlIy ing, anu WliIiC
he was thus absent from the state,
declared that the testimony which he
had given upon the preliminary ex-
animation was untrue, and that he
then demanded fifty dollars from
the brother of Layne and threatened
that if he was not given fifty dollars,
he would return and upon the trial
testify as he did upon the preliminary
examination, then it will be for you to
say what weight if any should be
given to his evidence as a witness in
this case and you should be at liberty
to wholly disregard his testimony if
you deemed it unworthy Of belief.
9th. The testimony shows without
contradiction that the witness Empey
accepted money and abSented himself
from the state, to be beyond the reach
of a subpoena and that while thus
absent rom the state he demanded
money to remain away, and stated
that the testimony which he had
given at the preliminary examination
was untrue, but that unless he was
paid money he would return and tes-
tify on this trial as he had done be-
fore, and as this is not denied by him
or by anyone you are instructed to re-
gard these facts in his conduct as a
strong impeachment of his character
dis witness, and you would be at