The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-02-10
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS,

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS,
& aBSTT
Was the Charge on Which Hamlin
Was Found Guilty.
A Long L list of Sentences Imposed in Court
| Saturday-Merrow Not Yet Sentenced
| Reardon Gets Four years.
The Hamlin case drew out q large
crowd Saturday morning. AS soon as
the jury came in, Judge Bonney de-
livered very able and impartial charge.
He said in substance that the two first
counts in the Indictment charge the re-
spondent with receiving boxes Of tobac 90
that he knew were stolen.
The other ten charges are those of
breaking and entering the store Of kSkil-
lin, Hawkes. g. Co., and the larceny OF
tobacco therefrom.
| The issue is an issue Of fact, as there
is very little controversy between the
parties over the rules of law in this case.
The question of fact is for you to decide,
and it is only for me to state the rules
of law. As you are to be the sole judges
of the fact it also follows that you are
to be the sole judges of the credibility
of the witnesses You will ascertain Just
how far the different witnesses have told
the truth. Witnesses have appeared
on the stand whose testimony was 50
contradictory and utterly at variance
that it is utterly impossible to determine
the facts unless to ascertain which one
told the truth, and how far he has told
the truth. The witnesses have told their
story, you1 have observed their personal
appearance and manner of giving testi-
mony here on the stand. That is mat
ter for you to take into consideration.
Witnesses have appeared who are deep
ly interested in the result of this uase
These witnesses, like all others, are SUBJ
ject to the frailties of human nature. It
devolves upon the jury to consider very
carefully how m uoh interest the witness
has in the case.
The judge then alluded to the testi-
mony of any W itn ess being oorrobora-
tive and is strengthened thereby. In de-
termining whether a man is telling the
truth or not it is for you to determine
whether the testimony he gives is reason
able or not. It is impossi BILE to arrive at
true verdict unless you determine how
far the witnesses are to be believed.
The burden rests upon the state to
prove the above charges. The state must
prove that the respondent knew the goods
he received had been stolen. The burden
also rests upon the state to prove that he
broke and entered the store of Skillin,
Hawkes. & Co. A man is presumed to
be innocent until proven guilty and that
presumption remains with him until the
state proves him guilty beyond reason
able doubt The state claims that on
February 9th, 1895, the respondent re-
ceived 200 pounds of tobacco from Arthur
G. Webster, respondent knowing the to-
bacco to have been stolen from the store
of Skillin, Hawkes. & Co.; also on
March 9th, 1896, he received 80 pounds Of
was also stolen from Skillin, Hawkes. &
Co.
The court then quoted the statute in
regard to the receiving Of st lien goods.
1t is incumbent on the state to prove
that the respondent knew they were
dates upon which the goods were stolen
and the exact amounts taken are imma-
terial, the question is, did the respondent
! receive in the latter part of February,
1895, any tobacco from Arthur G. Web
ster? That is admitted by the respondent
but Arthur Webster says he stole that
tobacco. The question is did the re-
spondent know it was stolenp Did he
have guilty knowledge of the factp The
state claims that the respondent when he
received that tobacco from Webster. kne W
it was stolen.
II ysu should find that the respondent
did know that the tobacco was st len
then the state has sustained it's charge
and you will return verdict of guilty
as to the first counts, but if there is a
reasonable doubt then the respondent is
entitled to that doubt.
The remaining ten count s are for
breaking and entering and larceny.
The state claims that under these counts
the respondent, Hamlin, accompanied
Webster, that they entered the store of
Skillin, Hawkes. & Co., by means of a
key and took the tobacco. Breaking and
entering is when person removes any
of the safeguards of a building, whether
it be the breaking Of window, the re-
moving of bolt. or the using of a key
to unlock a door. it all..comes under the
head of removing safeguard and there
fore is breaking and entering. The
court then defined larceny.
The charge WAS very full and COM
prehensivo review of the case, and was
listened to with the closest attention.
At the close of the charge the deputy
sheriff removed to the jury room the
boxes of tobacco in evidence in the case.
THE VERDICT.
At O'Clock Judge Bonney ordered the
jury taken out to dinner, and at o. clock
the jury came in and asked for further