The sun. (Wilmington, Del.) 1897-19??, 1898-05-15
ONE CENT

favor OF the defendant and stands as his
sufficient protection, unless it is over.
come and removed by the evidence in
this case, taking as whole, proving his
guilt beyond Il reasonable doubt. To
justify verdict Of guilty the evidence
adduced in this case, as a whole must
be such as to exclude every reasonable
hypothesis, but that of guilt of the de-
tendant as charged in one or more of the
counts OF the Indictment; and froll this
OF course follows that if the Jury find
that all the evidence in the case when
taken together is as compatible with the
theory OF innocence as with the theory
Of guilt, there should be an acquittal.
The commission Of q criminal offence
can be proved by circumstantial evidence
as well as by direct evidence, providing
the circumstances prove, together with
reasonable inferences drawn from them
are such as to leave no reasonable doubt
in the minds of the jury, that the de-
tendant is guilty You are to take into
consideration all the evidence in this
case, both direct and circumsta.tial, to-
gether with all reasonable inferences to
be drawn from that of evidence, in arriv-
ing at conclusion.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based
on reason and which is reasonable in
view OF all the evidence. 1t is not a
whimsical, arbitrary or purely specula-
tive doubt; nor a mere conjecture or
guess. If, after an impartial comparison
and consideration of all the evidence
you can candidly say that you are not
satisfied with the defendants guilt, you
have a reasonable doubt; but if after
such impartial comparison and consid-
Grafton of all the evidence you can truth
fully say that you have settled and
fixed conviction of the defendants guilt,
such as you would be willing to act upon
in the more mighty and important mat
ters relating to your own affairs, you
have no reasonable doubt and in that
case should find verdict Of guilty. Alb
solute certainty is not required for such
a v,rdict. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt as above defined is sufficient.
A numbero OF reputable witnesses whose
testimony has not been impeached, con-
tradicted or discredited in any manner,
which testified that for many years, last
past, the reputation Of tie defendant for
honesty and integrity IN the communities
in which he resided during that period
has been good. This testimony is evi-
dence in favor of the defendant and is
D afore you for the consideration in con-
nection with the other evidence in the
case.
III an eases ~ "''lcl person accused
u crime i.lNoiv'iis uls'onesty ana
Wait oi 'l!'esl - WI .'!a', ms gooo re-
pu'a''oi' iol 'oleS!! ai1': ihlegrltv are as
y II so,ileula''es oaiieu' l'is soo.l cl'aracter
lor hoilesIy alla li'es!lly' Is properly
~ ~ :" S''p'i'''eo w '''t jury.
l,'e pu' p'se VI e'iel' testimony ls 10
'naoie Ine IVY W uetefl''lte tf'e oegtee
u lh1prooaolllty t,'at the person on trial,
VINO possesses s,'cl, a 'pputatloh, should
'a,e I've, co'i''''l'',o suci' crime.
W nay Weigh Is 10 pe glve,, TO Ii'e good
.ep,'tat'o'i Vi ''le H, uelelluilhC sfests solely
WIZ, we Ju'!i N''cuills'alces IN one case
!,ayaoe s'cl' .lia' ~ es:aolislieo leputa-
Ion lor honesty anu ahu integrity on the
"rohla dnnht ae tn HE nn;lt a,thannL
snrL a rer,t,t;on th. a,.;donon
" " ,he case aSs' wou,p 'h'' he 'nE amd
@ ~, y rard;ct ,,f nl;ltv ~ anoth.. I"
,sa tha ,.;r c.,,nst,,,.as ,.,,. ha s',ob ai,
vnn,J rsn,,;re =, vardict nf n,,;,tv 0'' ,ot
';,hstandnr ,r n.tahI;. e","r .n',,,ot;o .;o'
W. ,',,. hnnaStv nI IL inteur,, ,'' n tha ' nor, -
ho ~ ,h dnfnnd,nt N' '' IVY VII '''' paw VI
~ + aaos n.ooss,r;,v f,l,,v fror, tho
n, thnt % % m,n ~ hos nood ro,,tat;nn .Gn 'to fn,
v ,"unstv,nI .. ii intnaritv hat '". Pe actn,ilu
th,sa tr,;ts nh,ractar "''', Tho
"nra nnssnsst Sl. ~ s,oh ro,+ot;nn in
nns @ ,pt p rnndar the ~ narson % n"ssepsinn ' l.
oa nannnhIa .,I 'lI. 81 'i ro' cpi,o ;,
ny "11.I dishonast m v and want o ni % iptaar;tv
- u.;th;r tLa namn'nn lnnuln'Ira IS
',n,,;nI IN thot nv ,anr ann nors,nu | ho.rSr
nnn ",i rnnnt,,;nn ,,,' a h,v. ne,orthaieSs hoo"
,;lt U;u ~ .%, or;,nn WI WL;n tha r. rnntat;nnnf
ha nl'. dofn,dant f,r honn.,r and ',,n ;ntnnr;tu
"f for ,.onr nnrS;darat;nn ns mort ~ .hs
,.iJa ~ ,""; thn oosn :'i' y i; l ~ WY ,
~ 'vtr nnt - W., In.s ,nd :, 'r ~ 'ro w
nu NV "" ,,nn,, , no reriow M nf all the oviJnnca
't tIo "n das' "rd IN tho o oSaro;sn s @ ~ S"nnd
, I'v u"st hai ,,,i ~ a,tnoh ,u ee w. u " ''''''u
'u' ", '''> ~ '''''''' "''".'' W '
mere Is uncontraoicted evidence ana
Is admltteo ny tiie co,nsei lor the de-
'ndant; that william N. boggs, at TIE
me me OF ms lllght from Dover' on May ~.
oyl, was deianlter TO tle anoliht OF
lOhWO; ana that SUM represented mon
vs. OF me FIRST Natiohal BANK OF l,over,
'hlch he had, Whlle receiving ana pay
lg teller OF that bank, unlaWfully en-