The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-01
NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.
TIE JURY NAVE ACQUITTED JOHN
T. RABINEAU OF THE CHARGE.
His Trial I'm tn. Hustings Court c me TO an
Ind Yesterday Anernoon-lhe
Courts distractions.

which had occupied the attth'4V' ~
Judge $ %. witt and a jury in the
Hastings Court for the past three days
came to au end last evening, wnen ihe
accu,,d was acquitted. and enabled once
marc 20 return 20 his home with his WE
and TWO Httic daughters VINO had .''''
his close companions during the u''''
Tho PROCEEDINGS had from the D'h"-
ming attracted e large crowd OF spe''"-
tors brt The interest reached us he's"'
during M, closing hours Of the ira"
An immense crowd eatherep ID
Ifu.tings court room early EeS'e''"'
rnorn.ue 10 witness the closing sceHea "a
a.. 1looay drama OF NovcmptI oth '"e
winch resulted 90 the arrest on 80, -,
,,htn..su. and a charge OF mufdtI dBd'iiI.
IN. accused was on hahd ea' -
49," .ool, b.4 seat behind the bar next 10
hI- .,jnsel. Ncs-rs. q. y. Me'tul'" 49,
Toy.s o. Weudcubuig MIS-. haoi'''u''
ber Two little daughters HtI s'S'I', GU,
the mother of the accused az, 80. tt,s-
seats near by him. Messl7' M'a''
kiUs ana IT, 81. smith, Jr.' aSdI" 'eP''-
scented .he Commonwealth. -.
T.t, .ry had been So their seats Dut
"a short whsle when they were AN" 'i1
ara.u. hc court having granted tine 10
-tI
.-,-..t,,. Judge Wit himself had beeh
,.....,,..l to appcar as witness In
,s, ~ taa CIreu; Court OF Hcnrico coun-
~ and 81 was $3.50 =. NJ. when the court
T5mmonDcliths Attorney Smith then
made a statement which ne had omitted
=, hiring out during the evidence. lie sad
tr.f 30 was admitted by counsel on inc
DINER side that Rab.neau, on the morning
of Noyember Sth. had in one Of his pock-
81. thirty cents. and in another pocket
f-,r, Ton t, twelve dollars iu silver. the
property of the Albemarle club, ana That
tu.- money WAS subsequently turned over
20 tho club
Judge WItt 90 The jury. and be prefaced
mis- reading by stating that the delay of
the opening OF the session was not the
fault OF counsel but that he himself mad
90 80 to inc Henrico County Cour, 90
testify iu thc shields viii case, and ihat
tr. .as. il bus own court was too serious
Iu i'- nature for him 10 give Instructions
without giving those submitted careful
cons dcIdtiOn.
The Instructions to the jury were as
follows
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.
Tho Court Instincts the jury that every
homicide in virginia is presumed 10 boz
murder iu tho second degree. IN order 10
elevate The offence to murder In me iIrs'
d'SIe" me ourden OF PROOF Is on tle o"i.,
,.t.., -. 49, -, 80
No., i,.i.s-,
i,-o,.d IN ,...,.,,,.,l,l. .t,,tt md 90 the
exclusion of every other theory consis-
tent with the evidence that tho firing or
shooting of the pistol was done iutcn-
clairoe5 ~ tbe ,r..orar maj tbo ksllinp
was occidental and not intentional, unless
they are satisfied from all the evidence
mat the killing was accidental the jury
must find the prisoner guilty. But The
jury are further instructed that IN order
for the killing 100 have been au unlawful
homicide they must believe from the evil
de..o beyond AIN reasonable doubt and to
the exclusion 0t every other theory con-
s'etout with the evidence that the shoot
INK OF the pistol was intentional
The court further iu-tructs the jury
hat voluntary lutoNicdtiou Us no excuse
i0r crime committed lv one under ite iu-
H-'h'e, ana II tney believe from the "v.-
d'"'e beyond 4ll reasonable doubt that
me accused whilst so intoxicated .ntcu-
Nona"} Snoi me deceased without just
pIoF"'dtioh or excuse. then they must find
ihr pr soHer guilty
B. but the Court further iu-tru,ts the
jury th"t II '"rl are satisfied from all The
evidence mat Dee killing of The accused
t'''- ''''' i'''''.' 'i~'lN'A
MIN
"' ''uIl lAslilcis the lury mat
"''" N presumed l." intend me CON
''I''I''@ "i iIS own act, provided his act
Mas done Intentionally and not accident
ally. and that while the voluntary use of
a dangerous weapon Is i'm itself sufficient
evidence 90 imply intent and malice. VET
n the act was acct dental the1 intent and
malice are d.spIoveL
IA, r,.r. an, ,-.-,,,.......
,rt. 80. "''
-. '',l p" ,' '"c Jury thdl the
.,', ',,.,.. t. ''' "'i,.'"""t 10 ne lhho-
moved r,,.fi,. 49,, IN ~ anu D.II''" NrII
and if There is up,u the minds of ,t.
jury any reasonable doubt of the dee.
fcudaut S. guilt. The laW makes IL thelr
duty 10 acqut him. that even IL th.r.
Was suspicion or probability of BITS guilt
however, strong. such suspicion ,r piohi-
bili'y would not be- sufii lent if The greater.
Weisht or preplnderance of evidence sup
ported the charge in the ind c'm,n' nor
,Ha' upon The doctrine OF chances 10 w .r.
NOR, probable that The defendant
is guilty. but 10 Wrran, his coav tnr
bis guilt must bc proved SD ,Ie4r,,. and
couclusiyely that there is 20 rcas .pabl.
theory upon which hc can De Innocent
FOR tho policy of our law deems 6. I. 49,,
that many guilty persons should e,ctna
rather than that one innocent nor.no
SHOULD bc convicted
A reasonable doubt As that e.ato oe
mind which. after a fun c.nn3ri nm AM
cons. Iteration of all ayfI.r..' t1, 80.