Gloucester County Democrat., 1894-07-26

manslaughter is the unlawful killing Q
another without malice, expressed or i'm
piled. That is to say, it is killing anothe
without warrant or excuse of law, wher
the killing Is not intended where ther
was no intention to take life, as where, up
on sudden quarrel, two engage in a fight
in which one receives blow which cause
death, without the intention to kill bein,
present.
In reaching your verdict you are re
minded that you are only to consider tn
evidence as produced here before you, an,
given orally, under the sancity Of an oath
All else is to be excluded from your minds
no matter in what form or from wha
source it emanates, it must not weigh witt
you in your deliberations. 1t is testimon,
as to facts and the circumstances naturally
or reasonably flowing from ascertainet
facts ana not theories or guesses. on whicl
you are to base your verdict. 1t may b.
that facts or circumstances flowing from
them may support theory, but theor,
is not fact. You are further reminded
that this defendant joins issue on this In
dictment with every presumption of limo
cense in his favor. 1t is not for HIM Il
show that he did not do the act complained
OF, but for the State to show that he did it
Until the State has done this, no accused
person is compelled to 60 upon his defence
This is what is meant by the expression
The burden of proof is ON the State
The defendant is not required to adduct
this high degree Of proof. If he establishes
fact by the preponderance of testimony
it is sufficient to entitle the jury to find
them in his favor
deem it proper to say further to you
that in this Investigation you will remem-
Der that where an act is capable of two
constructions, one consistent with guilt
and the other consistent with innocence
the latter should be adopted, and that the
circumstances must not only be consistent
with guilt, but must be inconsistent with
any other rational conclusion. 1t is not
sufficient that the circumstances agree with
and make probable the hypothesis of guilt,
but they must exclude, to moral certainty,
every other hypothesis but that single one.
All hypothesis inYolying the idea or sup
position of innocence are to be examined,
negatived and excluded by being decided
impossible or as being a mere physical pos
sibility, before you should convict the de-
tCuudAls 4nCcG AulCc euOuiu kuluC JOu AL
the investigation on which you are now
about to enter. But before you can con-
slider whether the defendant at the bar is
or is not guilty, it Is your duty to investi-
gate other matters. 1t is not my intention
to enter into a discussion or particular
statement OF the testimony in the case.
Counsel have fully and ably discussed its
various phases. shall only give you the
rules BY which you are to apply the facts
to the case, or possibly state some Of the
theories advanced BASED thereon.
You are frst to consider and determine
whether the body found is or is not the
body of Charles Cans. The Importance of
full conviction on this point is already ap-
parent. You must be thoroughly satisfied
upon this point, because, if it is not the
body of Charles Cans then you cannot say
that any one killed Charles Cans, or even
that Charles Cans is dead. This defend
ant is indicted for the killing of that par
ticular parsonage. Charles Cans, he is not
indicted for any other crime, and, if you
fail to find, as matter of fact, that Charles
Cans is dead, your investigation is at an
end and it becomes your duty to return a
verdict acquitting this defendant. Sup
posing yoa have considered this matter
and that you have reached the conclusion
that Charles Cans is dead, your next IN
quiry should be, was he killed Did he
come to his death by violence, and was
that violence unlawful You are to re-
member that all violence, even that which
results in death sometimes, is not unlaw-
full, as where a man, in defence of his per-
son or his property, within the bounds OF
law, inadvertently kills the assailant or
trespasser. 1t is as necessary for you to de-
termine that he was killed by unlaacful
violence as it is for you to determine that
he is dead. Therefore, / say, should you
fail to find (even supposing you find the
body that of Charles Cans that the de-
ceased came to his death by unla,cfM vio-
lence, then the defendant is likewise en-
titled to an acquittal. The evidence upon
this point is largely, if not entirely, that of
the physicians and experts, based upon the
condition of the body as revealed by the
post mortem examination held on the
second or third day of April last, or on
both of those days. l say this because
when last seen on the date alleged in the
Charles Cans was alive. There
Is no direct evidence so-called, as to where
Dr. how he met his death. The body,
therefore, is examined to ascertain, if pos
,ible, what was the cause of death. 1t is
not my intention to rehearse this testimony
It was given in your hearing and you are
to determine as between the conflicting
theories testified to by the different witness
ses. You are to determine whether there
were or were not any marks of violence
upon the body of Charles Cans whether,
in case you should find there scere marks
Of violence, they were inflicted during life;
whether they were such as would produce
fatal results, or whether they were such as
would produce Inconsistencies and the
body then being submerged in water, the
water completed what had been begun by
In connection with this branch
of the case the element in which the body
was found becomes important. Should you
find that violence had been used before the
body was in the water, it would then be a
fact for you to consider as to whether suf-
fering from this, q violence not fatal, the
deceased provided that you have deter
mined it was Charles Gans) wandered away
and fell into the water, or whether violence
had been inflicted upon him with fatal re-
sults and the body then placed in the water
in order to conceal crime. Can it be de-
with any degree of certainty from
the appearance of the body? Some of the
witnesses say it can, Snd others say with
equal or greater positiveness it could not.
You must determine. If you. in the course
Of this investigation, as thus far it has pro-
ceeded, become satisfied that not only was
this the body of Charles Cans, but that he
came to his death by unlawful violence,
your next inquiry will be, who inflicted it?
Or, in other words was it inflicted by this
Because it matters not by
whom the violence was inflicted, so far as
this case is concerned, if you become satisfied
the defendant did not commit it, or rather,
if the case, as presented by the State, leaves
in your minds fair reasonable doubt as to
whether this defendant committed the
violence, he is entitled to an acquittal.
/ shall not attempt, in this connection
either, to rehearse the testimony given by
the various witnesses for the State and for
the defendant, nor indicate the facts which,
in the mind of the Court, might support
one theory or the other.
Briefly stated, the contention of the State
is that at Germania Park. on the night of
January 18th, last, the defendant and the
deceased land possibly one or more other
persons) became involved in quarrel as
to whether this quarrel was serious or not
you are to determine. You are to con-
slider whether the quarrel was of a magni-
tude sufficient to be likely to provoke vio-
lence which would result in death.
II is further suggested, as part of the
theory of tie State, that if the violence was
not than commi itfad which lad 20 xho 1oof1,