The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-03-10

Pyramid Drug Co, Marshall, Mich
for sale and barter Intoxicating liquors
and bv reason Of same thereof the same
was a common nuisance and that if the
state has proven that the defendants did
break the windows Of the building that
said defendants had the lawful right 50
to do in order to abate the nuisance
and third, that if the state proves that
said defendants or either Of them broke
the windows in said building, then said
defendants were acting under legal adj
vice in so doing and would not be guilty
Of any offense.
"You are instructed, that under the
third defense set forth by said defendants
no evidence has been introduced to you
upon said third defense, and the same is
withdrawn from your consideration, and
i'm determining this case you cannot take
the same into consideration.
And upon the second defense you are
instructed that if you find that said de-
PENDANTS or either Of them did break the
windows Of said building IN controversy,
belonging to said Kate Herrig, Margar-
cite Herrig and John Herrig as set forth
in said information, then it would be no
justification OF excuse for the act that a.
Joint or saloon or other Illegal business
was being conducted therein at the time
the said defendants or either of them
broke said windows: and none Of said
defendants would have a right under any
circumstances to take the law into their
own hands for the purpose Of abating
same. even IF you should find, even IL
IT to be a fact that Intoxicating liquors
were kept in said building for unlawful
sale or otherwise.
"And upon the first defense set out by
said defendants counsel. you are instruct
ed that st is incumbent upon the state
before conviction can be had to prove
to your satisfaction, beyond a reasonable
doubt that the crime alleged in said in
formation had been committed; that the
same was committed By the defendants
in manner and form as alleged; that the
same was committed in sedgwick county,
in the state Of Kansas, and within two
years prior to the commencement of this
action, to-wit: January o. A. D. 1901.
"You are further instructed, that under
the laws Of this state any person who
counsels. aids or abets another in the
commission Of an 0ffense. is guilty as the
one committing the ofense, and may be
prosecuted Jointly or severaIly for the
same. So II you find from the evidence
I'm the case that an Of the defendants
went to the building in controversy and
counseIed. aided and abetted each other
IN breaking the windows Of the said
=
break or smash same, then all of the de-
PENDANTS would be equally responsible
for the acts Of each other in such wrong
ful act. and il woulv he i'm
material II such breaking or smash
ing was done for the purpose Of gaining
entrance into said building with the IN
tention Of destroying articles therein be-
iug and this would be 50 regardless Of
the character ofthe articles contained
therein or the business therein conducted.
you are further instructed that be-
fore you can find the defendant guilty
as CHARGED. YOU must find from the evil
dence. bevond q reasonable doubt. that
said defendants or any one of them.
broke said windows maHclously and that
their said malice was against tho own
ers of the building. And that although
yoB may find erom the evidence that the
defendants cid the breaking as charged
and with malice. yet unless you find that
said defendants did the breaking as
charged with malice towards the owners
of said building You must find the de-
Pendants NOS eunu
"And in this connection YOU are IN
structed that the word malice OF mali