The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1897-10-19
WHAT WILL IT Be,
GUILTY OR NOT2
Luetgert'S Fate Now in Hands Of
the Jury
JUDGE TUTHILL'S CHARGE
Clear and Implicit, Showing Favor to
Neither Side
BUT A CLEAR DEFINITION OF LAW
Dwelt Particularly On One Point, the
Corpus Deficit.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE WEIGHT
Burden of Proof Is With the state-Defense
Not Compelled To Prove the Woman
is AlIve-The Alleged Murderer
Is Apparently Confident.
Dwelt Particularly On One Point, the
Corpus Deficit.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE WEIGHT

Criminal Court Building, Chicago, Oct.
1S.-The fate of Adolph L. Luetgert, ac-
cused of numbering his wife and dissolv-
ing her body in a vat filed with caustic
potash, is nov in the hands of the jury.
Judge Tuthill finished his charge to she
jury at 4:45 p. m. and five minutes later
the jury filed out and was locked in the
jury room.
Judge Tuthill took up quarters near
the criminal court building in order to
be within easy reach IL verdict should
be reached during the night.
AT midnight not word of any sort
had come from the jury room, and the
chances of an all-night wait for the YER
dict seemed excellent. Rurnors of 10 to
for conviction and later of 10 Ito for
ar,.. 49, foated around but there was
no a"..-ority for etither story. The at
torneys on both sides were confident at
midnight of verdict favorable to their
side, while the opinion of the public was
turning toward a disagreement
States Attorney Deneen occupied the
greater part of the day with his closing
address.
Judge Tuthin instructed tha jury as
follows:
Before a conviction can be had lii
this case the state must prove beyond p
reasonable doubt and to a moral cer-
tainty, first, that Louisa Luetgert is
dead; second, that she came to her
death on the fest of May, 1897, in the
county of Cook, state of Illinois; third,
that Adolph l.. Luetgert, the defendant,
feloniously, malciously and of malice
aforethought killed Louisa Luetgert by
soma such means charged in the indict-
men or by means unknown. The bur-
den of proof rests upon the prosecution
to make out and prove to the satisfac-
ton of the jury, beyond all reasonable
doubt every material allegation in the
indictment and unless that has been
done the jury should find the defendant
not guilty. 1t is not incumbent upon
the defendant to prove that Louisa Lust-
gert is alive, or her whereabouts, or
what became of her. If it is possible for
you to reconcile the facts In this case
upon any reasonable theory consistent
with the innocence of the defendant it
is your duty to do so and find him not
guilty
You were instructed, as matter of
law, that IL you believe in the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that the de-
fendant assaulted and killel Louisa
Luetgert, as charged under the circum-
stances, showing no considerable prov
ation, but showing an abandoned and
malignant heart on the part of the de-
fendant and a total disregard of human
life, then the law pronounces the kill
ing to be murder and jury should so
find, it matters not that such evidence
is circumstantial or made up from facts
and circumstances, providing the jury
believe that such facts and circum-
stances pointing to defendants guilt.
have been proved, SO that from a con-
sideration of all the evidence there is
no reasonable doubt in the minds of the
jury as to the guilt of the defendant
Direct and positive testimony Is not
necessary to prove the intent. 1t may
be inferred from facts and circumstances
showed by the evidence. No man may
be convicted of a crime unless what. is
known as the corpus deficit has been
established by the prosecution, and un-
less you ar5 convinced by the evidence
in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Louisa Luetgert died at hte time
charged in the Indictment, and that she
came to her death in the manner ard
form charged In such case: it IS your
duty to acuiqt the defendant. In prov
ing the corpus delicti the state Is only
required to produce such legal evidence
as shall prove to the minds of the jury
beyond reasonable doubt a conviction
that the murder charged in the fndict-
ment has in fact been committed in
manner and form indicated and that ths
defendant Is guilty of its commission,
ard it matters not the proof, If such
corpus deficit consists In wbrte or in
part of circumstantial evidence, provided
that ID is sufficient to satisfy the minds
of the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt
of the commission of the crime charged.
while the statute Oft state, pro-
.-~~~>>---~--~-~-~->--