Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1897-05-20

/ The state contends that the revolver was
/ fred oy the defendant al MS wife w4tA intent
The defendant denies this ami asserts that
| IL was discharged accidentally with no evil
] intention on his part towards her
No one was present al the time u the hom-
4 ictuc Decides the defendant and the de-
prttra 70 TelE NANNY upon CIR III 9Lass Ia
I evidence iu the emdeavor tn establish tnar
! the defendant deSlgnedly took the Life ~ MS
/ VIE ana that her death was mol eaesed Pr
| an accidental discharge Of the revolver, as
I the defendant asserts
/ II IS my duty - refrain from conveying -
you any intimati0n Of what ! think the evil
/ deurr tends u prove or disproYe ia TIL. case
ami since cannot repeat 10 vou all of the
| Of il for tear thatlt did 50 you might be led
/ T. infer that ! placed particular stress upon
! ordinarily 20 cases where circGmstant3aI
evidence Is relied upon bv the state to secure
/ 4 conviction several hypotheses arise upon
/ &c evidence i'f the consideration Of the
I jury, as tor instance. whether the person
/ killed came % ais d~atn BIZ his own hand
whether the death was a natural one or not
whether the defendant was present al the
! homicide whether the DEAN was the result
tof his act etc and IN such cases il NAV ia.
specially regarding clrcums tantiai evidence.
+ lis natgre and effect have never thought
Z july t'L tltt sEuEtd lly are involved li3 td4l-
guage and contain clinical phrase. dIntcEIt
Tor ordinary men - understand ana that
are not always clearly comprehended by
4 LAWYERS and Judges.
f ~ this case am relieved from tue nece9-
~jtv FIJI attempting such Instructions for
here ~ Determining whether the defendant
II guilty ~ murder " mot There L hat THIS
0laelr question: Dl4 Lae Defending lHteH-
dla he shoot her accidentally Is Is sav.
Ihlo a' nave A9t sara Presents but q $.
gle question alt lough AT tue Hr,t elaac- Il
f. Y ssS'1 ~, e. a-teLs l.t e5iss5tts 4
Iuh Tor ~ It Sapl ucr Intentionally aer
dett " a. 's i-t ana = s5le IS a. ell9t
acs .deutaliF bg ald not intend % xiii asr
Inc adml>stp-ltlE u testimony il tor the
c2@tt it9 cHclt = Wn"l4y tor TIE GEy II
Is tor 81 = 70 say. after carefully c0H>l derlug
the tN tathct Wndt lt estapllsnes OF fatl1 To
eslaplleh u tle eF lQeitce cow noes Yet. be-
f1ila 9 te1,9ii1oiF 93t3t tlat the aeiea0aQt
throIgn tAe mead you should ind nln guilty
OF I'D 4F0et ~ 1he ISL degree II Fol are not
conNinceu beyond a reasonable DOUBT taat
~ utl'i5 1its al'l u.Ssls iledtN stlleo hct
y@- sd1uol unt alni stltsy 81 mGt4e5
should answer that the term defines it~elf.
nave never seen an ate ilpIed dominion 81
the expression reas@napte doubt taat con-
veyrd clearer or more definite meaning
than do lne Woras themselves anu, taefe-
fore tu charging jury nave >eidom al
lemptta " tAp pam them tnlnS a. gaod
1eult 'ioA A. nav seen dii3 Y mere u tIlt ioi-
"Fs -.t7 HIM III ~ $3.50 s. i'.e ~. 49,
not mean every vague or oEJcCtlFdl Doubt.
ouL H II >lostaatl14 aoIht-d reasonable
nHpolEeslSST,L isluS lt1ut tAe eNI1a!eilsr "a Z
Dry b the defendant guilt The Jury
shoqid rs cony nce9 a jurors waea taey
Saab. Il Sror s w5en t6en NV Would d5a6t L
me tafb,ve IN nm. a.fana,n, "a IS.
tead e kiii Ri, wife hs Is n9t ge!itgot tnr-
in any way accolatable to.tae law unless lie
negligence 8 " = =
ma9 or NAV a@t Re c 51 a es Is
se T 9 lss9g1 Il ' be 6 oa 9s9 -
d9ns 25 an 4P 55m+i aet yas lay reEars II