Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-19


''Not OF my own knowledge"
DO you know whether Solomon Mara
bic knew enough TO be able to discern
the value OF paper money!
Il have seen him tested" replied the
Lunenburger. II saw paper money laid
before him and he said he did not know
anything about the value OF it,
Mr.. Gregory was here told 20 stand
aside. and counsel for the defence said
they had no further testimony TO ofer.
The lawyers then spent an hour looking
over the instructions, which were sub
mitted TO the Court. They were briefly
argued and after having been fully con-
sidered by Judge Crute, the following
were allowed:
THE INSTRUCTIONS.
1. That malice is implied where no
considerable provocation appears, or
where all the circumstances show an
abandoned and malignant heart.
:. The prisoner is presumed to have
intended the natural and probable con-
sequences Of his own acts, and Of the
acts Of those he was assisting, done In
his presence and with his help.
3. That any wilful. deliberate. and pre-
meditated killing Is murder in the first
degree. that the design to Kill need not
exist for any length Of time, but may
be found just before or at the time of
committing the act; that II this shall be
believed from the evidence beyond all
reasonable doubt; that the persons who
struck the repeated blows with an axe
and a stick and thus caused the death
Of Mrs. Pollard, while she was being
held by the prisoner-Soomon Marable-
wilfully, deliberately, and premeditatedly
intend 10 Kill her. then said persons and
the prisHer are equally guilty of murder
in the first degree. or IL said murder was
committed in an attempt TO commit rob
berry. II is murder In the first degree.
4. That reasonable doubt is such
a doubt as may be honestly and
reasonably entertained as TO any sub
stantial, material fact essential to prove
the offence charged 1t must be based
upon the evidence or be suggested by
or grow out Of the evidence in the case.
o. That the prisoner is presumed to
be innocent of the crime charged
against him until the case is proved
against him in all OF its material cir
cumstances beyond any reasonable doubt.
and in order to find him guilty. as
charged in the indictment. the evidence
must be SO strong as to convince the Jury
of his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
and 10 the exclusion OF every other hy-
pOthesis.
g. That the evidence introduced TO
prove the confessions and admissions OF
the prisoner stands upon the same foot
ing as any evidence introduced to prove
his guilt, and they may accent such of
II as they believe TO be true, and reject
such OF 1t as they believe to be untrue.
The weight of such admissions or con-
fessions is question for the Jury to de-
termine.
T. That, where a homicide is proved.
the presumption is that II is murder i'm
the second degree. If the Commonwealth
would elevate IL TO murder in the first
degree they must establish the charac-
teristics Of that crime. and If the pris-
oner would reduce the offence TO man
slaughter. or seek to justify or excuse
the act the burden of proof is upon the
prisoner, and II is the duty Of the
jury to consider the whole testimony.
and ascertain therefrom whether the
prisoner has been guilty of murder in
the first degree or murder In the second
degree, or nanslaughter If either Of
them, or whether the homicide was eX-
cusable or iustifable.
g. That. 10 constitute murder in the
first degree, the evidence must clearly
and distinctly prove beyond any reason
able doubt that the prisoner was not
incited TO the killing of the deceased by
malice. but such killing must have been
a Mi4AAAs httiDeidAts anu Drtneuitulcn
act on the part Of the prisoner: in
other words, that at the time of the KILL
ing the prisoner must have dis
tinctly understood what he willed and
intended to do. He must have also re-
flected and deliberated and premeditated
that he would kill the deceased, or do
her some serious bodily harm, the proba-
BILE result of which would be death.
9. That the jury have the right
to consider, and should consider the
mental condition Of the prisoner at the
time Of the homicide in determining the
question as to whether the act was done
wilfully deliberately, and premedltated-
ly; but If the jury shall believe from
the evidence that the prisoner was suffi-
ciently intelligent TO know right from
wrong he is responsible for his acts
TO- That, to constitute murder in
the first degree. the evidence must
clearly and distinctly prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that the prisoner was
melted 10 the killing by malice. but such
killing must have been a wilful and de-
liberate act on his part; and that the
design to kill need not exist for any
length Of time. but may have been form
ell just before or at the time of the
commission Of the act, or that the kill
ing was done while in the commission
of or attempt to commit robbery.
THE ARGUMENT.
The argument In the case was opened
by Mr. w. f. Neblett, Commemorative
Attorney Of Lunenburg county. Mr.. Neb-
lett appealed 10 the Court and counsel
for the defence 10 call him down If he
should during his argument make mis-
statement of the law or in any way
get any Of the evidence in this controversy
cOnfounded. He declared that this was
the sixth speech he had made in these
cases. and about the sixth time he had
heard the evidence.
He then carefully went over the testi-
mony of the several witnesses who had
testified in the case, and said that i'm view
of that light the jury should either bring
in a verdict of guilty, or the system Of
prosecuting attorneys and that of jures
I'm Virginia should be done away with.
Mr. Neblett paid a glowing tribute to
Virginia womanhood, and said when ii
could not be protected by the gallantry
and manhood, the laws, or the juries of
the state, the names Of Lee and Jackson,
of Madison and jefferson would be a re-
prOach throughout all the civilized nations
of the earth The Lunenburg lawyer
spoke of the horrible nature Of the crime,
and referred TO the part of Solomon Mara
ble's confession before the Lunenburg
County Court in which he said that when
the women began TO hack Mrs. Pollard's
face with the axe he became slckened
at the sight and turned away. In con-
clusIon. Mr. Neblett advised the jurors
in the consideration of the case 10 DO
their duty 10 their country, their con-
sciences, and to their God.
Mr.. Lancaster opened the argument for
the defence by saying that he would re-
verse the order for duty laid down by
the eminent counsel for the prosecution,