Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-02-27

sEARcEY DID NOT KNOW his PAL
what He said 10 FredcricI<sburgers
Instructions Asked for by the De-
Commenced by Mr.. Thomas.


As stated IN this correspondence Of yes
terday. the Commonwealth rested It's
case. so on opening court this morning
evidence for the defence was begun.
MR.. MERCHANT ,TESrIFIEs.
The first witness was Mr. w. II. Mer-
| chant. who testified to the fact that Scar
cey while incarcerated In jail at Frede-
rlcksburg. stated to him during an inter
view that he had never made any confess
sion. had not given Morgan away. and
that he did not know him. The witness,
on being asked II he had had any conver-
sation with Mr.. Il. r. Troland. who tes-
titled on yesterday. In reference to Nor.
gan. answered yes" but as no grounds
had been laid by the defence for any
contradiction Of his evidence the witness
was not permitted TO state the converse
tIon. Considerable argument concerning
II followed. which finally resulted In the
Judge ordering the Sheriff to telegraph
for Mr.. Troland. which was promptly
done. and Mr.. Merchant was requested to
stand aside until his arrival
HE WAS NOT THE MAN.
Mr. J. c. Kaufman. OF Fredericksburg.
testified that while shaving Searcey in the
Jail at that place Searcey stated to him
that he did not know Morgan, and that
Morgan was not the mar.
Mr.. A. Il. Bolts. of Fredericksburg, tes-
titled to the fact that the deposition OF
Searcey, as shown TO Kim. had been sworn
to him by Searcey. in his office in that
city. and that II had been given to him
by the Commonwealths attorney, MIR.
White.
Mr.. James p. CorbIn. OF Fredericks-
L.... A..I <tAt fc Inn
had been typewritten by him. and 1t was
written from a manuscript copy which
was brought to him by Mr.. A. B Bolts.
This concluded the evidence OF the de-
fence. with the exception OF waiting Tor
Mr. Troland. and on motion OF both coun-
sells the jury were excluded from the room
and argument on the instructions COM
menced. which was continued until the
adjournment OF the court for dinner.
MR.. TROLAND TALKS.
On reassemblng at 3 o'clock. Mr.. Tro-
land, who had arrived on the 2:2s train.
was put on the stand. He was asked by
Colonel Shay had he rot stated on Thurs
day to Mr.. Merchant and Mr. Richard
Bryan, while in conversation with them
that he sold Morgan and Searcey meat in
Fredericksburg several days before the
robbery, but that he could not do so. for
IL was daily occurrence for many
strangers to enter the store. and, conse-
quently. he never paid any attention 10
them? His answer was. Yes" after
which the defence announced that they
would rest their case.
Argument on the instructions was then
continued and. after about an hour,
those presented by the defence were ac-
cepted, and read TO the jury by the Judge
INSTRUCTIONS.
The prosecution only asked for one in
struction, and that being refused by
Judge Ashton the defence asked that the
jury be instructed as follows: The Court
instructs the jury that before they can
Convict the defendant on the first or
second counts they must believe from the
evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that
the defendant committed the alleged Of
fence as charged In the Indictment: and,
secondly, that the defendant was at the
time armed with fiTearms-to-wit, re-
volvers-as charged In the first count in
said indictment. or armed with a hre-
arm-to-wit, "A revolver-as charged in the
second count i'm the said indictment; ana,
third that by threats and presenting OF
said firearms. or firearm. on Harry Muir
ray and Percy S. Crutchfeld, and they
must further find that said Harry Mur-
ray and Percy S. Crutchfield were at the
G. Weir. Henry Sanford. and Clarence a.
Seward trustees of the Adams Express
Company; and. fourth. that said Weir,
Sanford, and Seward were I'm fact and
truth the trustees of the Adams Express
Company; fifth. that the said defendant
did felonlously make an assault upon the
said Murray and Crutchfeld, II messen-
gers and employees. as aforesaid. and did
feloniously steal. take. and carry away
the property mentioned in the said in
dictment or some part thereof; and, sixth,
that the said property was the property
of the said Weir, Sanford. and Seward,
trustees OF the Adams Express Com
pany, as charged In the said indictment.
A REASONABLE DOUBT.
And the Court further instructs the
Jury that if there is a reasonable doubt as
TO any one of said facts necessary TO
convict the accused they cannot find him
guilty The Court instructs the jury that
1t is a well-established rule at law that
In a criminal case circumstantiel evidence
ought to be acted on with the utmost
caution, and can never Justify verdict
Of guilty. unless the circumstances proved
are of such character and tendency as
to produce upon a fair and unprejudiced
mind moral conviction of the guilt OF
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt;
and unless the evidence of the guilt of
The accused in this case Is SO strong as
to exclude every reasonable hypothesis
Of his Impotence the jury must acquit the
defendant.
CLEARLY PROVED.
The Court further instructs the jury
that they must be satisfied beyond a rea-
sonable doubt that each and every ele-
ment of the crime as charged has been
clearly proved. II Is not sufficient that
there be strong probabilities OF guilt,
for IL the fact tending TO show guilt may
be fairly reconciled with innocence. the
Jury should then consider a reasonable
doubt as existing and acquit the prison
ers, because the law Is too humane to de-
mand conviction while there is ra-
tional doubt in the minds of the jury.
The Court instructs the jury that mere
suspicion. however strong, Is not sufficient
TO convict.
The Court instructs the jury that cir
cumstantial evidence Is insufficient. when
assuming all to be proved when the evil
dence tends 10 prove some other theory
may still be true. for II is the actual ex-
cluson OF every other theory, which in
vests mere circumstances with the force
of truth: and even IL the evidence tends
to connect the accused with the offence
charged, and creates great probability
of guilt, and even strong suspicion that
the defendant had a hand In II. unless IL
excludes every other theory u Is INSULT
clent to warrant verdict of guilty.
The Court instructs the Jury that
doubt applies TO every essen
tial element Of the alleged offence. and
doubt exists when the evidence
is not sufficient to satisfy the jury Of
every matter necessary to be established
by the Commonwealth with such GER
tainty that a prudent man would feel
safe in acting upon II in his own affairs
,f the highest concern. and that such
doubt may arise, noe only out OF the
evidence, but may be the result OF want
)f evidence.
The Court instructs the jury. that II
hey believe from the evidence beyond
/ reasonable doubt that the defendant
3 guilty OF assault and battery, they shall
TX his punishment as has been already
by the Court.
The Court instructs the jury that while
he jury may convict upon the testimony
4 an accompllce alone. unsupported and
by other evidence going
O the material fact Of the case. the Court
would advise the jury against the convic-
ION of the prisoner upon such evidence
lone, II being dangerous so to do.
THE DYNAMITE.
II the Jury find that dynamite was not
sed against the persons mentioned In the
bird count OF this indictment, but, on
he coof ra ~ fha dvps mite vaa univ ueed