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

witness, all can say to you on tha'
subject is, that you are to take the tes
tiniony In the light OF the facts sur
rounding 1t, and of any possible inter
est, bias, or zeal of such witnesses, OF
any Of them, In the transaction, and tc
give such credit to the witnesses as
their testimony may be fairly entitled
to.
Whatever degree Of objection or dis
favor may attach to such witnesses fol
the part they may have acted as in.
formers, or informer, or spies, yet their
testimony Is competent evidence and is
to be examined, considered and weigh
cd by you as you have been cautioned
10 weigh the testimony Of other wit
nesses.
| A distinction is taken in the books be-
| tween detectives and decoys, although
In principle don't think there Is very
much difference. A decoy is one who
enters into the scheme with malcfac-
tors unites with them, counsels with
them, goes with them, commits crime
with them, yet one who acts as decoy
In good faith, with the honest purpose
Of bringing criminal to justice may
do so, and his testimony in that respect
is not to be disregarded wholly for
that reason; but the detective, or de-
coy in such case should act reasonably
a1d fairly and for the sole purpose OF
bringing the offender to justice; but
where one, under mistaken sense of
duty. encourages and assists parties to
commit crime or iuyeigles them into
the commission of crime, in order
that they may arrest and have them
punished for so doing, in such a cast
as that, the testimony of such Witness
es should be closely and carefully scru-
tinlzed.
The defendant has offered in his be-
half number of witnesses wno have
testified as to his previous good charac-
ter, and the court instructs you, that
evidence of previous good character Is
competent evidence in favor OF the
patty accused as tending to show that
he would not be likely to commit the
crime alleged against him. And In this
case, IL the jury believes from the evil
dencc that prior to the commission Of
the alleged crime, thed efendant had
always borne a good character for
honesty among his acquaintances,
then this is fact'proper to be consid-
cred by the Jury, with all the other eyi-
dcncc In the case, In determining the
question whether the witness who have
testified to facts tending to criminate
him have been mistaken, or have tes-
tilted falsely or truthfully; and II, after
a careful consideration of all the evil
dence In the case, including that bear
ing upon his previous good character
the jury entertain any reasonable doubt
of the defendants guilt, then 1t Is their
duty TO acquit him.
Previous good character, when es-
tnbllshcd, Is q circumstance to he con-
sldered together with the other eyi.
dchce In the case In determining the
guilt or innocence of the accused. And
you should, therefore, consider the tes-
timony Hat the defendant has brought
our In that connection, and for that
pruposc, namely, of his previous good
character and of the uprightness Of his
life.
The reasonable effect OF proof Of
good character is TO raise n presump.
tion that the accused was not likely to
have committed the crime with which
he is charged, The force of this pre-
sumption depends upon the strength Of
the opposing evidence to produce con.
viction OF the truth of The charge. II
the evidence establishing the charge