Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-05-16

opinion, judgment, approval and rec
ommendation and vote Of said Nc
Garry, as said City Commissions
er, in matter that might legally come
before him, the said Daniel McGarry,
as q City Commissioner; to-wit, the
consideration and approval Of an ordi-
nance purporting to grant The Central
Union Telephone Company the right
and privilege to erect and maintain
certain telephone poles and wires up
on the streets and alleys in the city
of Akron; and the second count as l
have stated, is substantially similar,
differing only as 1 have heretofore
pointed out.
These facts, 1t is incumbent upon the
state, by evidence here in court, to
lprove aud establish beyond any reason
able doubt.
1t is customary for courts to define
what constitutes u reasonable doubt.
1t is, however, what the term implies,
and later on will more fully define
the term as used in law.
In determining the question whether
the state has proved the material facts
contained in this indictment beyond
reasonable doubt or not, you must
weigh the testimony. You are, under
your oaths, fairly and impartially to
determine in this case. The court can
give you no assistance, except to pre-
scribe the rules Of law along which
you are TO investigate and determine
these facts.
1t Is u maxim of the law that wit
nesses are not counted, but that their
testimony is weighed. You are not
necessarily TO be controlled by the
more numerical preponderance of wit
nesses on the one side or the other,
but you should consider such prepond-
GRANGE with all the other facts and cir
cumstances conducting to belief in the
testimony of the witnesses on either
hand.
In civil cases issuesa re decided ac-
cording to the preponderance of the
evidence; that is TO say, a greater
weight of evidence; but in criminal
cases the humanity of the law is such
that higher degree of proof Is neces-
sary In order to convict of Il crime, and
the rule, therefore, Is, that the evil
dence on the part of the state establish
ing the guilt of the accused must be
clear beyond reasonable doubt; or,
in other words, the testimony on the
part of the state must be irreconcilable
with any other hypothesis than that
of the defendants guilt.
You are carefully to consider and
weigh the testimony OF each witness In
the case. Any possible bias, or prcju.
dice, or interest, or flvortism, Nlat
the Witness or witnesses, may have
is to be carefully considered by you
in order that you may give to the
tstmony Of each witness the weight
and consideration to which 1t Is fairly
entitled.
The defendant in this case was
sworn and testified as a witness in his
own behalf. The law gives him that
right, makes him competent witness
In his own behalf and his testimony
Is to be taken, weighed, considered as
you would consider and weigh the
testimony of amy other witness with any
possible interest which lie may have
IN the result of the case. You are not
to discrcdit or lay aside his testimony
simply because he is the defendant
named In the indictment but you are
to take what he says aud tcstilics TO
ms you take the testimony of other
witnesses, and weigh II IN connection
with the facts and circumstances pre-
ceding attending and following the
transaction, and give to his testimony.
and to the testimony Of each ana every
witness, such weight and such credit
as, under the circumstances. the facts
may warrant.
Perhaps, out Of abundant caution,
should say 10 you ,nasmuch MS the poll
ties, OF political affiliations Of the de-