The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-16

&%Ft&
~. or the lack of such power as disclosed
by the evidence; the retentiveness OF the
memory or the lack of such retentfveness,
far the testimony of the several witnesses
as corroborated or contradicted by that OF
other witnesses; the interest or lack Of
interest in the result of the trial, and such
other like considerations as occur to you
as men of experience in human affairs, as
having done SO. you should give to the
testimony of each witness such weight as
The defendant in this case has testified as
a witness in his own behalf. This testi-
mony is to be taken. considered and
and by the same tests as the testimony of
other Witnesses in the case. And while it
is exclusively your province to weigh the
testimony in the cause, yet it is proper for
the Court to say to you that you should not
lightly and without proper consideration re-
ject the testimony of any witness, and the
testimony should be reconciled If, in your
judgment, 1t can be reconciled, and If not,
testimony you will receive and what you
will reject.
IF you believe from the evidence that
any witness. before testifying in this case.
has made any statements out of court con-
corning any of the material matters ma
he or she has stated on the witness stand,
then the jury is instructed by the Court
that these facts tend to impeach either the
recollection or the truthfulneSS or the wit
ness.
IF you should find the defendant guilty
III dby u NitC LAG ScS CONcICd ny liz AAAACt~
ment it will be your duty to assess the pun
ishment in your verdict. In such case, If
guilty of murder in the first degree the
punishment prescribed by statute is that
the defendant, shall suffer death or be inn
at the discretion of the jury, and in such
event you may exercise that discretion.
IF your verdict shall be that the defend
ant is guilty of murder in the second de-
gree the punishment prescribed by statute
is that ne be imprisoned in the State prison
during life.
IF your verdict shall be that the defend
ant is guilty of manslaughter then the
that he shall be imprisoned in the State
prison not more than twenty-one years nor
less than two years.
The attorneys for both the prosecution
and defense express themselves as salts
fed with the instructions delivered by the
Court. Both sides submitted their own in
structions before the close Of the case and
they were given due consideration by Judge
McCray. The attorneys for the State say
they are satisfied with their work. They
feel they have done the very best for the
State that could have been done, taking
all of the circumstances into consideration.
The fact that a positive announcement of
a previous acquaintance between Thomas
and Smith came from Anderson yesterday,
created a little surprise among the attOr-
neys for the State. 1t is declared now that
Smith and Thomas were introduced in this
city two years ago. On that occasion West
ern b. Thomas and ex-Councilman +. E.
May. of Anderson. came to this city TO
take the initiative degree in the society
known as the Dogs" of which Winnie
Smith was president. The degree was adj
ministered to the gentlemen by Smith. Mr..
May, who was the companions of Thomas
that night, expresses himself as much sur
prised at the statement of Smith that he
had never before seen his victim.
With the information concerning the
previous meeting of the men, came also the
announcement from Anderson that many of
the citizens are at a loss to understand why
Dan Lynch was not called. 1t is under
stood that Lynch was not wanted by either
side and the assertion Is made that he
was hopelessly drunk on the night of the
murder. Charles L. Henry has, for some
time, been in possession of the rumor re-
garding the acquaintance of Smith and
Thomas, but was satisfied there was little
in it that was material to the case.
Landon Thomas, brother of the muir
dered man, says that he is satisfied with
the work of the State. He thinks that If
the case has fallen short, it was not due
to a lack of zeal on the part of the attor-
neys, but rather to the personal interest
of certain people to suppress evidence, and
to certain laws regarding testimony.