Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-09-25

attempting to get Farnham drunk for the
amusement Of the crowd. 1t is for you
TO determine the weight of this argumcnt
and the evidence upon which ii is based.
The defence claims that Farnham was
rot much under the influence Of liquor
when he came out OF the saloon. The
state contends thnt ne was very mtich
intoxicated. and relies considerably on TIE
testimony Of Mrs. Howe and Mrs Nor
ton. who described NJ" appearance as
they saw him and what occurred. Was
he or was he not in badly intoxicated
condition when he came out of the sa-
loon? The fact. whatever il was. mas
me bearing uuon the question Of his
condition when he took the last drink OF
m nor tne ,4ylucnce--which anpears to
he unolsnuted--waS that they came out
immediately after that-
Now. as | have tried to make clear to
YOU, before You can liho IN" rtSoohueh's
or either OF them guntN, YOU must he
convinced beVond reasonable doubt from
the evidence that they boih or else one
with the aid of the other Wilfuly and III
tentionally caused Farnham to drink the
liquors bv overcoming his will and for
me purpose Of making him drunk.
The defence strenUously deny that they
had any such design or purpose or that
Il any unlawful sense they caused MN
10 take the liquors. bat that Farnham
.ook them voluntarily. This is the inn o.
ant ARD strongly contested point in the
case AS bearing upon the probability oil
,he States contention that the viii oi
.'arnham WAS overcome. the State WAS
permitted To Introduce certain witnesses
who testified to certain acts and CONVEX
atoms of Farnham tending 10 snow
.'arnham'S character iSticS and ms tai "a =
J;tcitv. Th, incidents testified to ne q
.ot rehearSG You VIII easily recall them.
he defence. contend that he was not the
weak minded bog represented by the
state. ana have introduced evidence al
Ms acts and conduct which is coEtende'i
showS the contrary. Now VIVA; is the
3 object Of This testimony as 10 the mental
character uf the Fdrnham boy" ii IS
..ot necessary that il should appear that
q was weak-minded. if it be shown that
he respondents utd IN Idct overcome MS
will and uniawtuliN cause him to drink
liquors which caused his death. Ii is M,
+ question OF whether what they did
would be likely 10 overcome the Will 81
man ~ ordinary capacity and strength
# miuG-bGt the question i did they I'm
awiuliy overcome the Will of Frederick
Narnham-and bearing upon th3t cues
. 'ion evidence as To his mental caIdcttN
, : proper for the consideration "f tn"
Jury. Had he the capacity To know ana
i'd he know the effect of drinking the
iqIcr? Had he sufficient strength OF
! mind to exercise. Vulitiuu as to the dlinn-
.ug Of it when invited? II so. then the
-rInking was his voluntary act and Tho
respondents are not responsible for TN
consequences unless they overcame tina ,
over OF choice. ana III determining tina /
: question the jury may consider the eyI-
..cace bearing upon his mental capacity.
4 y child might know to some extent the
! fleet of ram or whiSkcE ana might have
/ he capacity Of VIII to accept or refuse
I olictation 10 -drink-hut obviously coulu
/ ..ot Withstand influences that would not
ovtrCume an ordinary person OF mature
ears. so with an older person Of weak
. indian imbt Cilt-a p. rSUn of feeble i'll
4 elect ana Will. Such a person would
not be expected to withstand iudlcement
N-hiCn men at ordinary mind could with
. tand. Therefore YOU are 10 determine
I THAT amount of mental strength Farm
am posscSScd-h!S knowledge ana pow
rs OF VohIiun-in determining whether
. "A fact his will and power OF rcSistau, c
,.vrc in fact oVtrIhruWn.
i Nh, jury retired at G.3u O'clock