The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-04-23

were made by said w. ii. Hoag
land unlawfully, felonlousIy ant
q falsely, with intent to defraud sal,
Logan Fire Clay Company; tha
Y by means Of said pretenses III,
said Hoagland ubta ined from tn,
said Logan Fire Clay Company
building brick of the value of Thir
ty-hve hundred and siXty.four Dol
lars, the property of said Company
and Two thousand Dollars of law
ful money, the property of sait
Company; that in truth and in fac,
the maker of each of said notes, NJ
w. Simons, and the endorsers there
of, The La Toilette Coal & Iron
Company, Harry M. La Toilette
f. G. Helm and w. II. Hoagland
were not either of them persons ol
large property and ample and
sufficient means to pay SAID notes
but were each and all of, them at
the time of making said represeta.
tions aforesaid insolvent; said
promissory notes at the time of
the making Of said representations
were not good, valuable and col.
lectible, but were wholly uncollecti-
BILE; that the said w. III. Hoagland
at the time of making said preten.
ses well knew the said pretenses
to he false.
To this indictment the defend
an has entered plea of not guilty.
This plea of not guilty casts upon
the State of Ohio the burden OF
Satisfying you, by the rule here in-
after stated, of the truth of each
and every material allegation con-
tanned in said indictment. The
plea of not guilty, so as aforesaid
entered by the defendant, puts In
issue each and every material
allega ton in the indictment; and
before you can render Il verdict of
guilty against the defendant, under
said indictment, IL is Incumbent
upon the State of Ohio to satisfy
you of the truth of each and every
material allegation in said indict-
ment beyond reasonable doubt.
The mere finding Of an Indict-
ment creates no presumption of
the defendants guilt, it being mere
ly u preliminary proceeding to
bring the accused to trial.
Inasmuch as the question Of
what reasonable doubt is, must |
be carried by you through your
entire consideration Of the case, in
all of its phases, and in the appli-
cation of the law as given you,
will define what, in law, constitutes
II reasonable doubt.
"The jury will he justified and
required TO consider a reasonable
doubt as existing, if the materi.l
facts. without which guilt caunot
be established, may fairly be re-
with Innocence. In human
Affairs, absolute certainty is not
always attainable. From the nature
VI things reasonable certainty is
Ill that can be obtained on many
subjects. When a full and candid
consideration of the evidence pro-
luces a conviction of guilt and
the mind to II reasonable
'ertainty, mere captious, or in
,enious, artificial doubt is of no
avail. The jury must look 10 the
evidence, and If that satisfies them
VI the defendants guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, they must say so.
But, If they are not fully satisfied,
md find only there are strong
,rol abilities Of guilt, the only safe
curse is to acquit. A reasonable
loubt is such a doubt as would
rise in the mind of an ordinary,
reasonable man, after Il full con-
Liberation of ali the evidence. 1t is
uch doubt as reasonable man
would apply to matters of the
,ravest Importance to himself, or 5
lis own affairs"
The material parts of the indict- =,
nent, which II is incumbent upon
he State to establish, under the &
ule aforesaid, are as follows: !
First, that the defendant on the 4,
tn day of February, 1896, deliver
d to said Logan Fire Clay Com
he two notes of Three thousand {
nd five thousand dollars, described
n the Indictment; that they were
|elivered To said company in the
ounty Of Hooking aud State of
)hio, and all ofthe representations
lleged to have been made concern. {
ng the delivery Of said notes and ,
he obtaining Of the property be-
ore and hereir after spoken of,
we're made and occurred in the I
ounty of Hooking; that the said {
logan Fire Clay Company was II