Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-09-25
JURY DlSACREES.
aAE
CONTINUED from page So
l. That Farnham was killed by re"s'n


IL a uerson commit an act in ltstii uli-
lawful but without intending TO XII !"
do great bodily harm. ana the a'l n'
commits results in the dea,n ot per j.:
the person doing the uniawiui act
.slilty az ,,anslaughter. TINS IS the so
.raI principle OF law upon Whch 'iie s,his
eminent relies for CONVECTION III ~ b.,
case. IL is necessary that you reiiieinne
this princinle in applying the eNiuetI..
| repeat: The act which results III Nv Nv
killing of Il person. in order 10 nthe w
act manslaughter' must De ~ ,ha kim:
which results as a consequence tnahc9
il mansiaughter regardless OF any ~
sign to kill or to do great boails "a a., !,
and If there were such design IL Wouu III
murder. - l;,,, in
is the causing of person 10 dfii.k -.
toxicating liquors to drunkenness uhltt
ful? Cnder ordinary circttil7t .',.,'.s5 -.
causing of person who mas arrtNtu d,
Years ~ discretion to drink ln'oNl'alinF
iiuuors by invitation or solicitation. :
not unla wful. Even urging one l" u.''i ~
upder such circumstances. however II
49, no regarded as a question OF morals.
is not an unlawful act. To render inc A.
unlawful it must be something more ti',..
the convivial drinking Of companions y.
invitation or persuasion: something ho-'
th,u the urging to drink although l." tN
cess. however immoral; II mus arp
that the drinking was wnluiIN cause" ~
pursuance of further wrongful pui pos
The State contends that the accuse
wilfullv induced. persuaded and ct&S''
mo deceased Frederick Farnham over
coming hv reason Of FdrnhamS fear
h,rr1 or ridicuIe or both his VIII ar'
mower of resis:ance-to drink OF ale
whiskey, rum and gin IN nuiyN suc|oSS!I
with but il few inmates petWttA u.
drafts out Of wantOn aud reckless Si'1!'
with the purpose and intent 10 make mn!
drum! for the coarse ana Imn"f1l anus
nant IF themselves and their cotnnhhp,
and To make him the butt oi their tid
culc-a Kind Of sport, not innocent, b"
c,lruIat.I to produce personal nurt ana
injury and to lead To puhilc dlSerGer an &
breach of the rCa"" ana Is uhlaWi ! -
Moreover. drunkenness IN i puhilc P!at,
street or highway in this state l. unlaN
mi hv statute and a person 50 being IN
tcXicatrd in such places * lllhle 4" pun
iShment by tine or by impTiSunmcht:
If therefore Won find from the cvidrnC
in this case beyond reasonable DOUBT tndt
the respondents or either OF the m VII
the wilful assistance or tncnlFastinent q.
the other did in this way cine manner I;
claimed hv the S;tatel and with such IL
sign cause Farnham to drink alcohol!,
liquors in such quantities that me
caus.d his death. then both respondent
are guilty OF mauslaughtcr. AlthouS
thew are tried together, either one or bot
may he found not Slilty or guilty y.
YOUR verdict.
The defendants deny any overcoming
Farnham's Will. thus causing him &
drink the liquor or to drink 1t for an
ever liquors Farnham drank that nigh.
in their presence We're taken aS his nW
voluntary act and that such invitation ,
to drink a We're extended 10 him b.
payson were in the ordinary way with u
undue urging or unlawful desEn-ani !
is contendcd. on behalf Of MCClench, thu
the liquors were sold by him t. Payso
with no other design or purpose IMAM 1
receive his pay for them.
1t is trIe that in selling the liquors NJ
Clench did an unlawfui aCi. because it
forbidden by statute ana ne is liable i
punishment On conviction for tn. vio.a
lion Of the law prohibiting the sale
intoxicating liquols. But the fact alon
of his having violated this law does no
make him legally responsible for IL
death of Farnham. He cannot be hel
tor that except upon evidence which col
VinceS YOU beyond reasonable doubt thu
he wiIfuliy ana corruptly caused or ala,
in CAUSING. Farnnam to drink the liquor
which caused his death-if you first fin
that the liquors did cause his death
which fact is not contested.
| repeat in order that you may clear
auUrchend this Instruction: The fact al pu
that McClench sold the liquors in viola
ton OF law, which Farnham drank. is no
enough. and if you shall find that he W
connected with the affair to that cXter
and no further. merely selling the liquU
for its price. however reprehensible ma
be the act. he cannot be held guilty ur
der the Indictment. He can he punishc
Tor the act of selling the liquors BIZ a
propriatc proceedings. but for tho rcmot
and unantiCipated results of the use
the liquors he j.; not liable tor that rC
Bute the state contends that the H.
nishng OF the liquors for his pay f.
them. alone. was not the extent of NJ,
Clemens connection with the affair al.
il does not ask for his conviction on tn.
ground. but contends that the jury WI
he warranted in finding from the evidenC
that MCClench. knowing that Farnha
was being imposed upon and of an inte!l
ton ana design Of Payson to get Farr
ham drunk for the coarse amusement :,
the bystanuerS. he assisted and cncour
aged il by furnishing or mourning the lie
u"rs for him 10 drink and continued SO t
furnish them for that purpose after Farm
ham had lost control of mis- will. his con
Sci"us reason. and power of refusal
Farnham had such power at the bcgi'
ning--and until h. had drank 50 mGc
that he died consequence.
While there seems to be no dispute til
Mctlench sold the liquors which wel
drank by Farnham. it is denied that
had any design beyond the sale or tn,
he knew of such design on the pant {
IaySon. You will see therefore that b
fore you can find McClench guilty /.
manslaughter or any offence under tn.
indictment the State must satisfy you b
Nond reasonable doubt. either. that
had an unlawful design beyond the me
act of the unlawful sale Of the liquor
or, il you are convinced that PaVSon h;.
such design and in fact carried it in;
effect by unlaW:ul!y causing Fdinham ,
drink the liquors. that McCicEch knew
that design and knowingly assisted ii
furnishing the liquors which ne kne
X.
such design or knowledge of design :
MCC1enCh are proven t. YOU. and tn.
McClenCh assisted in putting such desie
into execution. then he is guilty una.
this indictment provided YOU shall liz
that Farnham died as a consequence +,
the liquors he was 50 unlawfully cause
to drink If such unla wful intent did ne
exist in the mind of PaNson. then Meth,
IS guilty. If Tayson had such design an
Nctlench did not know ii assist il, /.
is not guilty.
50 much for the law Of the cas-
" htther or not the accused or either Z
!hem Is guilty under these rules Of Ia
IS IN" important question which YOU ma.
determine. That is your province aIon,
- Is II" part Of my duty to express 4
intimate any obinion as to the facts :,
tilt weight of any evidence. This Il
Judge presiding is forbidden by statute :
10 n summarizing the evidence - Il;
as To recall clearly to Your minds IN
CONVENTIONS and claims of thu. prosccirt, C.
ahu lhc answers and contentious of n,
ueiehCe-for | do not think il necesea.
10 20 INTO the testimony in detail sh3
ny 10 state II fairly and fully in its mai
features. and | trust with no anucar1n,
Oh hlaS towards either side
II Is iliSt to be determined bv va
Mhc'hef or not Farnham is dead Or T.,
mere Is no question. Next how cam, l.
!" ms death? The State in proof ~ ii
immediate cause of his death relir. mo,
'ltS testimony of DrS MilIiken ,rJ n ~.
fla.A