The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1898-02-04
NO VERDICT YET REACHED
CONTINUED from First Page.)

Continued from First Page.)
fore instructed the jury that it was it's
duty to pass upon both charges. Judge
Roraback then stated that the law OF
the state made the jury judges not only
of fact. but also of law.and that it was
the duty of the court to state the law
and opinion thereon, but that the jury
was not necessarily bound by the opin-
ion, 1t might esteem that the law COW
ering the case was otherwise than that
laid down by the court. In that case
the jury had the right of a final judge
as to what the law Is. He cautioned
however, that the jury must take the
law as 1t Is and not as the jury thought
that it ought to be.
The Judge then stated the penalty for
the crime of arson to be not less than
seven years nor more than ten years
in states prison, this being laid down
by the statutes, He then referred to
the common law for the definition of
the crime of arson. He said that to
constitute the crime of arson 1t was
not necessary that the entire dwelling
house be set on fire, there must be
QuGSllOI DIS u WIldG' IlldlGIldI COllSll-
tutes some part of the house. The
burning must be wilful and malicious.
He stated, however, that the term mall
ice does not apply to design, malice
being implied in a wilful and criminal
act. He stated the four important ele-
ments Of arson to be as follows: First,
| there must be some burning of the
! house; second, the structure burned
must be dwelling house or building
| in connection with a dwelling house;
| third, the house must belong to anoth-
er one as occupant; fourth, the burn
| ing must be wilful. He then said: IF
you all, from the evidence given in
| this case, believe that beyond a reason
able doubt all these elements enter in,
| then you will come to the conclusion
| that the accused is guilty. 1t is not
| necessary that the accused shall have
actually fired the house. Section 1888
| of the general statutes provides that
every person who shall assist, abet,
| counsel, cause or hire another to do
an offense may be punished as If he
were the principle offender. Did the
| accused cause, counsel, abet or hire
| this man to do this act? If you find
| from the evidence that he did then it
| is your duty to find him guilty." Con-
| tinuing, Judge Roraback said that
there had been no evidence to show
that the accuser was even in the state
when the fire occurred but instructed
that if the jury found that he had
caused, counseled, abeted or hired the
man to set the fire, even although he
did SO do in Springfield, and not in
this state where the fire occurred, then
the jury was in duty bound to find
him guilty He called attention to the
fact that in order for the state to prove
| the guilt of a prisoner 1t must so prove
! beyond a reasonable doubt and i'm
pressed upon the jury the fact that the
| advantage of any reasonable doubt
should be given to the prisoner He
said that it was unsafe to rely en-
tirely upon the evidence of an accom-
plice, although he is corroborated by
others, Much would depend upon
| the manner of giving evidence
of the accomplice. He called
attention to the fact that the state
had claimed that the accused possess
1 ed the motive to do the act, while the
| defense had placed stress upon the in
credibility of Cooks testimony; that
his testimony was that of an accom-
plice; that it had not been corroborated
in the material parts; that he had been
induced to implicate Captain Hodgdon
by the hope held out that it would go
easier with him; that the accused had
\ always borne good character He
said that the weight of the testimony
of various witnesses was wholly a
matter for the jury to determine. 1t
must take into account the manner of
the witness and also his interest in the
case as effecting his credibility. The
jury should take into consideration any
reasonable doubt as to the prisoner
connection with the crime and then
give him the benefit of the doubt and
acquit him If those reasonable doubts
existed in their minds. If the evidence
failed to show a motive on the part of
the accused then this was point in
his favor. The evidence of the prison
er's state of mind as to the occupant
of this building should be considered
and ALSO any expressions which the
evidence showed that he had made
against Mr. White. In conclusion he
said that the question of character was
of great Importance. When two wit.
nesses testify against each other the
jury was not to consider their evidence
evenly balanced, but was to consider
which was to be given the more weight
The judge concluded his charge by
stating that in the eye of the. law q
reasonable doubt was such as grows
out of the evidence, and he impressed
upon the jury the justice of giving the
prisoner the advantage of any reason.
able doubts, but also said that abso-
lutte demonstration of guilt was moi
required, and that If it were conviction
would be rare indeed.
The Arguments.
Court opened at 1915 yesterday
morning with large crowd of specta'
tors present. Mr. Barbour offered E
map of Springfield as evidence to show
through what streets F. J. Adams said
he saw the man pass whom he alleged
that he saw throw bundle from the
bridge on the morning of January "a
This closed the evidence and the ar.
guments began at once. Assistant
State Attorney Wheeler opened for the
state. He defined the crime of arson ane
said that burning under such circum