Bridgeton pioneer., 1894-05-31
connected the prisoner with the

~ ohoW iA WhCU uhuucI Uu6 W6LCu
connected the defendant with the
crime, the Judge charged that, by the
| testimony of Mrs. FiehI, this watch
was passed by Louis Fiehl, the defend
ant, TO her. The watch was in Fiehl's
possession. and il his possession of the
watch ha not been explained-and 1t
had not been done by the defense-it
is presumed that 1t Is the result of the
burglary, as indicated by the evidence
of the State.
Mrs. Fiehps evidence Is, In a meas-
ure impeached by the defense. Mrs.
Ffehl undoub' edly intended to shield
her brother-in-law, said the Judge,
until she was compelled to divulg 9
against him. 1t Is the natural inclin-
.5ion of people in humble life, or
poorly informed minds, to shield rela.
tives suspected of crime. Her story
on the witness stand, the evidence
which she was compelled to give, was
Drroborated by the officers, and the
story of the transfer of the handker.
chief containing the watch, was COR
roborated by the officers.
This story Is the the States expaln-
alton of Louis Fiehl's possession of the
watch. The watch was found in the
house where the defendant lived. 1t
has to be explained how it got there,
because, unexplained being there. the
question would be how came it there :
Having been taken from the Yerkes'
house in November, how came it In
this place Dec. 10Th. 1t was shown by
the State to have been the watch of
Miss Eston, and taken at the time of
the burglary.
The theory of there having been
two men in the burglary did not re.
lieve either of them from the conse-
quences of the acts rtsulting from that
burglary In which both were con-
cerned, for If out of that burglary
there results an act such as this mur-
der, both are equally guilty of the
commission of that act-each would
be guilty of the act and responsible for
Its results.
''If you believe that this entrance
was made by two men, and that this
defendant was one of them, both are
responsible for the results, and If he
the defendant, was thus connected
In the infliction of these blows, caus
ing the death of Christian ,iss, then
he Is guilty in the manner In which
the law points out.
The Judge said the defendant was
indicted in such way that he coulc
be convicted of murder In the first OF
second degree, or manslaughter, or
of course, could be acquitted.
The Judge then defined the different
grades of murder, and said, "Havlna
come to the point that Flehi was the
person who inflicted the blows, If yor
believe that he inflicted those blows
with the intention of killing 2 Mss
then 1t Is murder In the first degree
but If you believe that he only in
tended to disable him, then it Ii
murder in the second degree; but
there are other crimes, which,
connected with the crime of killing al
have stated, intensity the degree o
murder, and make 1t murder in tn,
first degree. Among these other crimes
is that of burglary.
Burglary Is the entering by night 6
building used as dwelling house, with
intent to commit a felony; and here Sc.
the danger.
The verv act Is menace to life; the
burglar don't mean to be captured
and the householder if aroused don'l
mean to let the burglar escape"
This larceny of the watch alluded to-
involves breaking, said the Judge
and he went on more clearly defining
burglary.
If the person who entered there die
so with intent to steal, he Is responsi
BILE for all the acts which resulted
and If the cutting of Zaiss occurred
while the burglar was running away
but still in the premises, he Is still re
sponsible for the death of q .iss. The
law means that If the death wounds
occurred in doing the act it Is connect
ed through 1t all. If the infliction O.
the fatal stabs occurred in the yart
while aiss was in pursuit of the burg
lar, they were inflicted during the act
of the burglary in the meaning of the
law"
The gist of the charge did not seem
to have any loop-hole for the jury bu,
to return a verdict of murder in the
first degree or to acquit.
The jury retired, but Judge Reed
sent for them In a few minutes to come
In AGAIN. and charged them that II