The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-06-04
DOHLMAN CONVICTED
The Jury Finds Him Guilty After Thirty
Minutes Deliberation.
GETS TWO YEARS IN THE PEAlTEATIARY
Three Other indictments Pending
Against Him, Two for Robbery and
one for Arson-The Charge Of the
Court to the jury objections by
Defendants Counsel,

me jury came into court yesterday
at II o'clock looking fresh from good
nights rest, The session was opened
by the counsel presenting instructions
Tor the court to pass on. The jury was
excluded while these instructions were
being argued before the court.
This took up about an hour, and
the court granted the instructions.
which ruling was objected to by counsel
Tor defense.
The jury was called in at 1916 o'clock
and Captain Marshall con tinued his ar
gument. and read to the jury the in
structions and argued them as he pro-
ceeded In the reading.
The court instructed the jury as fol-
lows:
First-That if they believe from the
evidence that the prisoner (Joseph +.
Dohlman) and the witness Crank LINN
were accomplices in the offense charged
in the Indictment and that they were
both present at the same time aiding
In or consenting to what was done in the
commission OF said offense. then they
are both equally responsible for said
o1fense. and 1t Is immaterial which OF
them did the particular acts involved
In the commission Of said offense.
Second-That the Indictment does not
charge the prisoner with breaking and
entering the house therein mentioned
with the intent to commit any particu-
lar larceny. But If the jury find from
the evidence that the prisoner broke
and entered the house mentioned in the
indictment, as charged therein. with in
tent to commit larceny, and that he did
commit larceny OF any Of the things
mentioned In the Indictment. then said
larceny Is to be taken as sufficient proof
Of his intent to commit larceny with
which he broke and entered said house.
Third-That If they believe from the
evidence that the prisoner (Josepl T.
Dohlman) and the witness Crank Linn
were accompliceS in he offcnSeS charged
III the indictment against the prisoner,
and that they broke and entered the
house mentioned in the indictment, as
charged therein, with intent to commit
larceny, and that any Of the goods men,
toned in the indictment We're then and
there stolen therefrom. and that recent
~ after the same were stolen they were
found In the joint and exclusive possess
sion OF the prisoner and the said Frank
Linn. then such possession Of such re-
Gently stolen goods Is prima facie evil
dence Of the guilt OF the larceny there
OF and throws upon the prisoner the
burden OF accounting for that posses
sion.
Fourth-That 1t Is 4 general rule at
common law with regard to evidence
In cases of larceny that the possession
OF goods recently stolen is prima facie
evidence Of guilt and throws upon the
accused the burden of accounting for
that possession. This rule. it is true
has never been held by the Court OF
Appeals Of Virginia to apply with the
same effect in cases Of housebrea1ing,
and the decided weight OF authority
is that 1t does not. Still where goods
have been obtained by means OF a
housebreaking, the fact Of such posses
sion is q circumstance to be considered
by the jury, and where, in addition TO
such possession. other inculpatory cir
cuhstances are proved, such for ex-
simple as the refusal Of the accused to
give any account or his giving q false
account OF how he came by the goods.
such proof will warrant conviction.
Fifth--That the offcnse of which the
witness (Frank Linn) was convicted In
the court Of Norfolk county. the record
or which was given in evidence, does not
dlsqualify him from being a competent
witness. II he has been punished there
FOR