Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-09-19

that property, for:
In the saloon when Hopkins threw h!
hands up Burns was too bright man {,
shoot Elm then Afterwards when thu
malice In his heart had grown upon hin
he told Hopkins 'Ill bury you, you sol
| of a b." Hadn't he murder IN hi
! heart then? Has there been any evidenc'
that Hopkins was the aggressors Not 6
particle The mental decisions weren
sufficient to prompt Burns to assault
! Hopkins when the latter called him {
dirty cur. Why? Simply because b,
hadn't his revolver with him. Hopkin!
testified Burns carried his revolver only
when he intended to collect money. Mix
Burns wasn't going to Lewiston to colleo
money but simply to introduce Mr.
.Jeffreys to the good people of Lewiston
Burns knew that his time was limited
that opkins was getting out a Warrant
to restrain him. When he came dowI
| from his rooms onto the street in front o.
the Democrat office, by all testimony, ht
looked up and down street, looking FOL
Hopkins Not seeing him it served his
purpose, acting as he was on the theory oil
self defense, to go into the Democrat
office and talk about Lewiston. 1t was
then that Jeffreys noticed he was un
usually civil. He then had the same cool
demeanor that he had when walking
down street, when talking with Mrs.
Hopkins, when shooting at his brother
In law, and when he walked into Judge
Andrews office But where was his grip:
Up stairs where his wife left it. That
wouldn't indicate he was going to Lewis
ton. Then when Burns went out with
murder in his heart and walked down
street, he was possessed with the purpose
to murder Hopkins. He looked into the
saloon and Hopkins wasn't there What
if his sister did call his wife W,
what was this to Mike Burns who had
used the same epithet about his own
sister? If he was excited by her words
why didn't he kill her? Oh, no! He was
after Harry Hopkins. These clothes
Showing the coat and shirt torn by the
bullet show whether he shot with in
tent to murder or not Was he very
excited when he said you've got re-
volver for me you son of a b.. Those
words show he wasn't very excited, do
they not? If he had shot Hopkins in fit
Of alteration, wouldn' he instantly have
rushed to the side of his victim, whom he
supposed he had killed. But instead he
walked cody down the street thinking
that he had made his nephews and nicces
fathcrless. Self defense was Mike Burns
theory of defense at that time as is shown
by all his language. 1t was found TO be
a too flimsy one, and so that of insanity
was suggested. Take the testimony of
Mr.. Fall, TO which the counsel for the de-
Tense didn't refer. Burns said in that
court room that Hopkins had sent word
that he wss going to kill him and II
didn't wish to die so soop," and as
Burns said this he laughed. There you
have the character of Mike Burns and the
display of the malice he had long
cherished in his heart.
You remember Burns said he didn' t
turn the pistol on Freddie Hopkins but
did turn it on himself. Does not that
show conclusively that Burns knew at
the time of the shooting just what he was
about. He was as cool as when he turned
away smilingly from the talk with his
sister on that morning The ability with
which the counsel for the defense have
conducted their case is the best evidence
possible that there is nothing IN fact to
disprove that Mike Burns did shoot
Harry Hopkins with intent to commit
murder Gentlemen, 1 believe there is
no middle ground in this case. 1t is
either guilty according to the indictment
or acquittal. 1t is either to do your duty
or to compromise and You must remember
that old adage, that to compromise with
crime is to participate in crime.
You can we'll say when you return from
the jury room in the language OF an elni
nent jurist In similar case. We do not
bring this punishment upon you Michael
Burns, you brought 1t upon yourself.
'You builded the structure we but gave
1t the name.
The county attorney closed his argu-
ment at 1920 1t was remarked by all
who were present that 1t was a very able
and effective presentation of the case from
the Wow point of the prosecution.
Judge Hall then charged the jury as
follows, occupying about half an hour:
Gentlemen of tho Jury 1t is not often
that jury is called upon in the trial of a
case to determine questions more mo-
mentous or to give their attention more
strictly to rules of law and the facts in
cause than you are called upon to observe
in the trial of the issues which are here
presented. The defendant In this Case
stands charged with having committed
crime, as the State contends, under pecu-
liar circumstances of brutishDess and
atroclty. The defense says that the act
was committed while The party was IN
accountable and Irresponsible, and the
issue whether or not he was accountable
and responsible remains entirely for your
determination. The State is charitable
and favorable to human infrmity and
| will make no man responsible for crime
| committed when in condition Of mind
to render him incapable of an intent AT
| The same time it does not favor, and is
not charitable to human ferooity or human
brutlshness.
Now the defendant comes before you,
gentlemen, with the presumption of in
nocence upon him, like all other respond
ents under charge Of crime. And he Is to
be considered innocent until that pre-
sumption of innocence is over borne be-
yond reasonable doubt. The fact that
the respondent himself was not put upon
the stand is not to be considered by you
as evidence Of his guilt The Inv pro
vides that respondent charged with
crime may or may not testify. 1t Is
wholly within his volition to do as he
plcases, and the law especially provides