The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1901-11-21

= w. AAOu w Ako'
credit or disregard. The possibility o.
error alike exists, whether the evidence
be direct, or circumstantial.
The value of circumstantial evidence
depends in large measure upon the
elearness of the connection between the
facts shown and the fact to be inferred,
1t also depends upon the number Of
related facts from which the inference
may be drawn; the more numerous the
circumstances the greater will be their
probative force. One circumstance NAV
be OF slight moment; another, tending
to the same result, increase by its o
sistency with the first, the probability
the Inference to be drawn from their
existence and co%.existence; if another
be added, and still another, all pointing
in the same direction, added and in.
creased strength is given to the infer.
ence, each circumstance being a strand
giving stength to the cable of which ii
forms a component part. Circumstan-
tlal evidence must be founded on reason
and experience establishing a connec.
ton between known and proved facts,
and the facts ought to be proved. Its
force, effect, and weight as evidence, is
largely in the fact that as such testi-
mony comes from several witnesses and
dlnerent sources, a number of circum-
stances is less likely to be falsely prepar-
ed and arranged, and falsehood and
perjury are more likely to be detected
and fail of their purpose.
1t will be observed that in such eyi.
dence, however, not only must the re.
lated facts be established, but just con.
cluslons must be drawn from them. 1t
is manifest that in such case it calls for
closer observation and higher powers of
intelligent discrimination and judgment
on the part of the juror than in cases of
direct testimony where,a fact alone is to
be determined; in circumstantial testi.
mony, net only is a fact, or many facts,
to be determined, but just and true con-
cluslons are to be drawn therefrom.
In the first place, each related fact
from which an inference is asked to be
drawn must be distinctly and independ.
emily proved by competent evidence.
INC no inference should be drawn from
a tact not proved.
In the second place, great care should
be exercised in drawing inference from
proved facts. 1t must be a fair and
natural, and not a forced or artificial
conclusion, and, if in any case a con.
clusion as reasonably consistent with
innocence rather than guilt can be
given, such conclusions should be
drawn.
In order to justify a conviction upon
circumstantial evidence alone, the ul-
innate fact to be deduced, or inferred.
viz: The guilt of the accused, must be
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
And not only must the circumstance
concur to show that the defendant
committed the crime charged, but they
must be inconsistent with any other
SOASiOcAOds AuO CIRCUMSTANCES
taken together should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency, leading on the
whole to a satisfactory conclusion and
producing in effect a reasonable and
moral certainty that the accused is
guilty. Absolute demonstrative certain
ty is not required, nor need it be so
conclusive as to exclude every POSSIBLE.
ity of an error. 1t will be sufficient if it
satisfy the understanding and con-
science Of the jury beyond a reasonable
doubt.
In the case at bar, the jury should
consider and carefully weigh the cir.
cumstantial evidence offered under the
rules given. If in connection with the
direct evidence offered, OF if independ-
emily, the jury believe that the facts
and circumstances shown are inconsist-
ent with any other rational and reason
able conclusion than the defendants
guilt, then it would be your DUTY to so
find and return.
If, however, such facts proved can
fairly and reasonably be explained upon
the hypothesis of the defendants in.
nocence, and If such facts do not .ex-
clude every other theory than that
Of guilt, then it will be your duty to
give the innocent rather than the
guilty Interpretation, and return a yer.
dict Of not guilty.
Evidence has been introduced touch.
ing the reputation for truth and verac.
ity Of Mrs. Charlotte Farnes, and re-
garding the general moral character of
said Mrs. Charlotte Farnes, and Mrs.
Boynton. Such evidence may be con.
sidered by you as affecting the credible
ity of such witnesses, and for no other
purpose.
The evidence OF various witnesses who
have testified is sought to be impeached
by the testimony of other witnesses who
testify tn contradjctnrv statomonto