Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1898-10-26

the other testimony in the case AS affect
ing the likelihood of the crime being COM
mitted by her. You have heard from the
witnesses and from the letters the terms
IN which they addressed each other. the
pet names, ii you believe the testimony.
when he was not in liquor.
| Whether you find any evidence that
| they were unfriendly. whether or, not
| there was affection between them? If
you find they were affectionate toward
| each other, as is claimed, and that there
] was no trouble except when he was in
drink. and then you find that at those
times the wife became impatient OF him
and threatened to procure a divorce.
whether or not after such times she did
not continue to live with him up to this
fatal night? There are more or less state
ments that he would end his life If she
did not live with him. Is it true that he
made those statements? And if he dill.
does it or not indicate to you an affection
that he had for her?
| Now she says that in the bed room that
night she said to him that she should get
a divorce if he kept on drinking, you win
remember the testimony. And when she
|
what she says, if that is the truth about
1t you will judge. Was there an affection
one way and the other, and if there was,
how FAR does that aid you in determining
the condition of things on that fatal
night? And whether or not, if Everett
was attached to her, as the defence
claims, and when he was in that drunken
condition, apprehensive that she might
|
not such result as is claimed by the
defendant, by his own act, might or
| might not have occurred?
! am only calling your attention to
these things that you may give the proper
weight to all of these circumstances and
then determine what and how much they
| prove, and whether they show beyond n
reasonable doubt. to your satisfaction,
| the guilt of this defendant, or whether
they may all be explained consistently
| with her innocence?
Now it is said, and truthfully, that if
Il person charged with crime under cir
cumstances of suspicion, undertakes TO
explain it contrary to the fact by giving
| false versions of how the thing occurred
| 1t has tendency TO inculpate the party.
An innocent party will probably tell the
! truth about 1T, and the truth will tend to
| indicate the innocence of the person.
| guilty person might Undertake to manu-
facture story which would look inno-
| cent, and yet it might prove to be incon-
| sistent with the facts. An it is claimed.
| by the State that on the night after the
| shooting, or the succeeding morning the
| story was told that the defendant was
not in the room at the time of the shoot
ing. The mother says it was at her sug-
gestion that this was told. as the result
of a suggestion from White that he
| didn't want to be mixed up in it. White,
1 Think, contradicts this and, l believe.
puts the suggestion into the mouth of the
| accused.
/ Now in passing upon that. you will take
into account all the surrounding circum-
stances, her condition. Very many wit
nesses say she was excited and almost
hysterical. Take into consideration her
conduct from the time of the injury, what
she did during the night, calling for help
and attending upon him during the night;
| whether all those acts were those of a
wife, and an innocent wife, or whether
| they were put on so as to seem to be III
| nocent of a crime she had committed
All that is a matter for you.
There is considerable testimony as to
what was said by various persons at vari-
Gus times. Upon this l give you this in
struction: That that class of testimony
ought to be received with great caution
| The evidence, consisting it does of
| mere repetitions of oral statements, is
| subject to much imperfection and mis-
take. The party himself either may be
| misinformed or not have clearly ex-
pressed his own meaning, or the witness
/ hDy mic ,1nre- l.;
happens also that a witness, by uninten-
| tionally altering few expressions really
used, gives an effect to the statement
| widely at variance with what the party
actually did say. But where the state
ment is deliberately made and precisely
identified, the evidence it affords is often
of the most satisfactory nature.
| Now this case has been very ably ar
gued to you upon both sides. So far as
the arguments are supported by the tes-
| timony, they are worthy of your consid-
| GRAFTON and may afford you aid in arriv-
| ing at a result.
| Guilt cannot be established upon prob
| abilities or the doctrine of chance but
| must be proved, but it may be proved by
| circumstantial evidence, as / have stated.
! If all the circumstances which you shall
| find to be proved beyond a reasonable
| doubt point conclusively to guilt, and
| necessary exclude innocence, her guilt Is
| thereby established. But if the circum-
| stances proved are consistent with inno-
cence, then the State has failed to estab-
| fish the charge by the required amount
! of evidence
| If you have a reasonable doubt that the
| the death was caused by the shot, if he
died from any other cause or that the
| Shot was Internationally fired by Rose,
| without unlawful or original intent, you
| should acquit. If you are satisfied by the
| evidence beyond p reasonable doubt that
she with unlawful intent fired the pistol.
/ and that Everett's death was the result,
/ then your verdict should be guilty, and
| if guilty you will also determine whether
| murder in the first or second degree or of
| mansaughter.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.