The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-11-24

cent Of all crime, and the burden Of provin,
the contrary is upon the Commonwealth.
Second:-If the jury are not convinced
beyond reasonable doubt that the defen
dsnts did, wilfully, deliberately and pre-
meditatedly, and Of their malice afore.
thought kill and murder Joseph Rutkof,ki
there can be no conviction Of murder in the
first degree.
Third-The burden Of proof never shift.
to the defendants, but remains on the Com.
monwealth to make out its entire case be-
yond any reasonable doubt.
tourtb;-DecaRtions OF intention and
threats do not give rise TO presumption of
law as to the guilt Of the defendants.
! Fifth The mere presence Of defendants
At the time threats are made by a third per.
sou to do injury to another is not, in itself
suthcient to make them parties to any com.
bination or conspiracy, to carry out the
! threats
sixth UNLESS there was a precedent com
mon purpose to kill Joseph Rutkofski or do
him great bodily harm, in the absence of sat.
lsiactory proof, beyond reasonable doubt.
/ that they aided, assisted, or abetted him who
/ ala It. the defendants must be acquitted
| seventh The mere presence of the par
Ties ht the time Of the commission Of a crime
even though they be in sympathy with the
criminal, does not, in the absence of any aid o.
ing, or abetting thereof, make them in any
way responsible for the crime.
Eighth :-lf the jury believe that at the
time Bubnis went TO Rutkofski's gate. and
inflicted the blow that caused the death the
defendants had no knowledge Of any inten-
ton on the part of Bubnis to kill Rutkofski
or lnhict any injury upon him, they, the de-
lendants, cannot be held responsible for
Bubnis' act. and must be acquitted
Ninth;-lf the jury believe that the death
OF RutkOfski was due TO blow inflicted bv
ROLLS Bubnis, by reason of a previous diff
Guilty between Bubnis and Rutkofski alone
and that the defendants had no part in the
inhcting of the blow, they must be acquitted.
Tenth:-Tbere is no direct evidence in this
case of any threat by any of these defen-
dants to injure, or take the life of Joseph
RutkOfski, the deceased.
Eleventh;-If the jury have a reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the defendants or any
one of them, that doubt must work his. or
their acquittal
Twelfth IF reasonable doubt arises in
the case which, after comparison and consid-
Grafton of all the evidea ce, leaves the minds
or the jurors in that condition that they
cannot say they feel an abiding conviction,
to moral certainty, of the truth Of the
charge against the defendants or if there is
such want Of confidence in the result Of
thought, or Investigation, as would prevent a
reasonable and prudent man from coming TO
a satisfactory conclusion about an important
matter in the business of life, the defendants
must get the benefit of it.
Thirteenth In every criminal case the
defendants guilt must be made out by evil
dence SO conclusive as TO exclude no reason.
able supposltion of innocence; each fact in
the chain must be proved by distinct, inde-
pendent and competent testimony; each
should be consistent with the other. and with
the main facts sought to be established the
inference to be drawn from the evidence
must be natural and reasonable and to a
moral certainty, certain ones; and the hv
pothesis OF the guilt must be such as 10 ex-
clude every reasonable theory of innocence.
Fourteenth If the evidence in this case
is susceptible of construction consistent
with the innocence of the defendants. the
jury are bound TO give it that construction
and scquit the defendants
ADDRESSING THE JURY.
A. d. Knittle, Esq, began the first address
to the jury at s:45 O'Clock this morning con.
tous effort, in which he reviewed the case
faithfully, belittling the idea that there was
any conspiracy, and charged some of the
Commonwealth witnesses with perjury,
whether wilfull. or mistaken. He told the
jury that all the evidence pointed to the fact
that those of the defendants who we're at the
gate, were drawn there through the attack
Zugeranski and Slusawicz had made
L De-
the dead man, had not taken part in
this quarrel. He was neutral and had
pushed Zugefsnski outside his gate. saying to
him Go outside and fight after Frank
Dtlshis had pulled Zugeranski inside of the
fence, away from Stenkawicz, to save him.
Then Rutkofski stood at the gate, laughing
at Stenkawicz and others, who were battling
with Zugeranski and Slusawicz, when ROLLS
Bubnis, with malice in his mind, arising
from the quarrel they had at a wedding five
weeks before, ran out of Lutskis yard and,
crossing the street, struck Rutkofski on the
head, iufiicting fatal wound. Then the
crowd ran back across the street. There was
no murder in the minds of KOras OF the |
other defendants on trial.
ID. o. Bechtel, Esq the other counsel for
the defendants spoke for half an hour, max. |
ing powerful address, concluding at HAS. |
de declared that some of the witnesses who |
had said they heard threats at the gate may |
have been mistaken in the intent of the |
words. They were meant for Zugarenski |
and Slusawiezr who were trying to beat An.
thony Stenkawicz with billy. He made
light of the charge of conspiracy and in
sisted that the defendants were merely jok
ing in all they said ON their way to Koras'
and at Benders'.
District Attorney Bechtel began his sum.
ming up at Has and spoke forcefully He
said he did not wish to excite the sympathy,
or prejudice of the jury, but to encourage
the reign of justice. If the labor of the case
resulted in bringing to justice band of
it would not be deemed lost. The
law is not founded on the principle of
vengeance, but for the security of the people
and the punishment of the wicked.
AT 1890 court adjourned until o'clock.
District Attorney Beohtel resumed his
address at o'clock and was still talking at
o'clock. He intended TO speak until s:45,
and then give way for Judge Henning's
charge. He asked for verdict Of murder in
the first degree.