The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1899-05-04


ality and society. 1t does not matter
much whether or not the homicide is
proved beyond q doubt to have been the |
deed Of one Of the victims Of the hon o,
destroyer If a jury can find the shadow
Of an excdse for saying that the avenger
of wronged family moy not have done
the killing that prettxt will be used. !
Otherwise the emotional insanity out |
let is always open to permit tie escape
Of the slayer from the penalties fixed by
law. Perhaps 1t is just as well in the
long run that such is the practice of
juries and courts While it is absolutely
destructive to social peace ard safety to
permit individuals TO take vengeance
into their own hands and be law unto
themselves, American juries can be relied
upon not to tolerate anything Of that
sort except in naggravated cases for which
the machinery Of public justice provides
no adequate remedy. It is q poor and
sordid satisfaction for man or woman
whose home has been ruined by licen-
tious scoundrel, to sue him for damages,
but the law provides no other punish
ment to be a warning to offenders Of this
class. If Gins against the peace and hap
piness Of the home were more adequately
punished by the laws and courts, there
might be fewer scquittals Of men and
women who kill those who have de-
stroyed their domestic peace"
SOME SENTIMENT.
The Plain Dealer, commenting on the
verdict, says: There Is still a good
deal Of sentiment in old Stark"
A DEFECTIVE CASE.
The Pittsburg Dispatch has the fol-
lowing editorial concerning the case;
"The acquittal of Mrs George at Can
ton ends another Of the rcCed cases that
have occupied national attention, hardly
to its ediflcation. Two causes are as
signed to this result of the trial, which
injudicinl logic cannot be harmOnized.
Yet so superior to the restraints of rea-
son is the human mind that it is possible
both contributed to the result. The first
is the public dislike to banging a
wronRed woman who revenges herself on
the man who has injured her. If it we're
true that the acquittal wGs due to this
cause alone, it would have to be classed
as failure of Justice It may well be
that the public feel sympathy for wo-
man in such a position, but the jurymen
were sworn to render their verdict in
accordance with the law. 1t Is not the
law that wronged women may s. out
their wrongers, nor should IL be. That
sentiment is the first step in the direc-
tion Of illegal revenge, which has gene
the length of the unmitigated savagery
of the southern bOrrors. Yet this senti-
ment was undoubtedly present among
the people of canton, and on attempt
was plainly made by the defense to use
it. But we can Pcquit the jury Of vio-
lating their osths on account OF the other
cause for acquittal, namely, the weak
nature Of the evidence against the ao-
cused. When q man is found shot, the
fact that another man or woman had
cause for hatred, and had even made
threats, does not prove that person
guilt. 1t may be corroboratory Cf other
evidence, but with direct evidence lack
ing, the case is defective. The direct
evidence asserting that Mrs. George did
the shooting was 80 bad as to really dis
credit the case. An eye witness pretend
ed to have recognized her at some dis
tance, and followed that up by admit
ting that the night was so dark that
when inspecting the body m atoh had to
be lighted to see who it was that was
shot, The attempt TO explain this by
saying that the defendant was recognized
by the flash Of the revolver does not bet
ter the matter any. When the shooting
| is AZ close as this was stated to be, If any
one could be recognized by the fash it
would be the person shot. AS to the
muoh disputed matter of the revolver,
that was not vital as another person
could have secreted 1t where 1t was al
legged to have been found as we'll as Mrs.
George. The alibi for the accused may
rot have been perfect, but it was GER
tainly stronger than the direct evidence
against her. Judging the case entirely
on the evidence, conscientious juryman
was justified in entertaining reasoabls
doubt as to the act of the accused having
been proved. That being the case, the
question whether the other and improper
sentiment affected the jurymen can be
left to their own consciences