The Wilmington daily Republican., 1901-12-23
||||

teD- ~ pFsscsibsd by law, snd. When
. speci6c sum.is separated and ~.
propriated by ssid bank or it's agent
for the payment Of any such warrant
to the holder thereof, In accordance
the direction or authority Of the Re.
ceiver of Taxes aud County Treasur.
er. II therefore becomes aud Is paid
out, in contemplation Of said statue,
as the money and property Of the
Receiver Of Taxes and County Treas
urer.
We are asked by the defend ant to
instruct you "That as the offense
charged ln tho indictment Is a pure.
y statutory one, unknown to the
common law, the statute must be
construed strictly both In Its words
and spirit"
In Mccoy vs.. State. Q Houst., 439
Quoting Common wealth vs.. Loring,
8 Pick, 374), rhe Court say: SIT Is
true 1t Is 80 laid down as q general
rule; and the reason is that the Court
shall not be allowed to make that an
of1ense which was not So by legisla.
tive enactment But the rule does
not exclude the application Of com.
mon sense to tue terms made use of
In the act"
"Criminal statutes must be STRICT.
ly interpreted, but courts must
search for the will Of the Legislature
and the rule is not violated In giving
to words their full and proper mean.
ing"
State VS.. Thatcher, room, 445;
State vs.. Crowley, 80 N. J. Law, 264.
We do not see that the doctrine Of
proximate or remote false paetence
applies to this case. In order to con-
vict, you must be satisfied that 1t was
the false pretence made by John Lynn
the defendant, that enabled him to
obtain the said money, and II that
false pretence was so made by him
and did enable to obtain the, money,
1t would be sufficient.
The indictment charges that tho
money obtained was the money Of
Horace Rettew, as Receiver Of Taxes
and County Treasurer, who Is a per-
son within the meaning Of the word
"person" as employed in the statute.
1t Is therefore unnecessary for lis to
pass upon the question Of whether the
County Of New Castle is such a 'peNE|
son" within the statute. N
Evidence Of good character, like
any other evidence tending the inno-a
cence, Is entitled to Just so muoha
weight under the circumstances Of
the case the jury deem proper to give !.
it. 20
We have been asked by the desen-
dant to direct you to render verdict
of not guilty.
This, gentlemen, we cannot do.
The guilt or innocence Of the defend
ant Is the question for you to decide
faom all the evidence In this case un-
der the law as the Court have laid it
down In this charge. BY the law SO
laid down, you are to be governed in
reaching your verdict.
Our duty has been pcrformcdin de-
|carlng the law TO- you.
~ aPSu euS SSiuSukS tou SuICI lulu
a reason able doubt as to the guilt
of the defendant, that doubt should
.nure to his acquittal But It must
be a-season able doubt, growing out
II the evidence. and such as reason
able impartial and conscientious
men should entertain after a care
ul and conscientious consider alton
II ali the evidence before them.
The jury retired to their room Short
Y before IL clock.
After the jury had retired coun.
'el for Mr.. Lynn filed an exception
o the courts charge.
Ajurywas drawn to try the cas;
II John Byron VS.. Max Abramson,
he plaintiff was represented bv
Howell S. England and Mr.. Ander-
on by William II. Kurtz. Byroa
la,ms sl77 for wages at the rate of
"A per week. He collected and
rganized clothing club and some.
i,ne sod clothes on commission.
The Lynn jury was still out at
0 clock aud court was adjourned
ntil 2. 30 o'clock this afternoon.