The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1902-05-01

Uniform quality and freshness q
AeA
1t must appear that the acts before
referred to caused the death of the said
Maud Stone. If her death resulted from
any other cause whatever, the defend
ant cannot be convicted. II the death
Of the said Maud Stone was occa.ioned
by any other cause than that charged,
the state is not entitled to a verdict Of
guilty.
Under our law the distinction between
an accessory before the fact and prin-
cipal is abrogated. and all persons con.
nected in the commission of a public Of
Tense, or aid and abet its commission,
thong h not present, are alike guilty as
principals.
In the case at bar it is not claimed by
the state that the defendant, Ira Ham.
mond, committed the acts charged as
constituting the offense. but it is claim.
ed that he aided and abetted in their
commission. If you find that one j. w.
Croftord committed the acts which con.
stitute the crime charged, and that de-
PENDANT, Ira Hammond, aided and abet-
ted in their commission, he is guilty.
Even if not personally present when
said acts were committed, il he advised !,
counselled, arranged for, or did any act
which in any way assisted in bringing
about said acts, he is guilty. II he was
present and encouraged, or counselled,
or in any way aided or assisted in the
commission OF such acts, he would be
guilty.
Mere knowledge on the defendants
part that such acts we're contemplated,
or intended. or were in fact committed,
would not be sufficient. Even personal
presence, without advice, counsel, en-
couragement, aid or assistance would
not make the defendant responsible.
Evidence has been permitted to be in
troduced on the part of the state with
reference to another abortion which the
state claims was performed upon the said
Maud Stone in August, 1900, and in the
commission of which it is claimed the
defendant aided and abetted.
The jury are instructed tina, such evil.
dence was PERMITTED to be introduced as
bearing upon the question of the motive
intent, or necessity of the acts of the
parties with relation to the particular
ottense charged, which it is claimed oc-
Cured in January, 1901, 1t would be
improper for you 60 consider or give
weight to such evidence for any other
purpose, The defendant could not. be
convicted of the crime herein charged
/, 1y showing he had aided and abetted
III the commission of a like ohense in
August 1900, even if you should find
such fact. The crime charged and for
which the defendant is on trial was the
one alleged to have been committed in
January, 1901, and if such crime was
not committed in January, 1901, or if
committed, if the defendant did not aid
and abet in its commission, he is emit
tied to an acquittal, whatever occurred
in August, 1900.
1t is no defense to the crime charged
that the woman consented to mis-
carriage. If you find, In the case at
bar, that the said Maud Stone consent
ed, or even desired and arranged for an
unnecessary abortion, such facts, if
shown, would be no excuse or justiica
have in any manner aided and abetted
in such unlawful act.
Much of the evidence relied on by the
state as showing the defendants guilt
is what is know in the law as circum-
the court to instruct you as to the
nature and character of such evidence
and of its value in the ascertainment
of truth.
Circumstantial evidence is that class
of evidence wherein the principal fact in
issue is to be inferred, or deducted from
other facts proven. 1t is thus called
because it is composed of circumstances,
or olut cd in
ner with the ultimate fact to be deter.
mined.
Circumstantial evidence is legal evil
dence, and is not to be discredited
merely as such. Its value, and, indeed,
its nece 81 y in the ascertainment of the
truth is unquestioned. Nothing in the
nature of circumstantial evidence rem.
ders it less valuable than other evidence.
Indeed, it has been said that in many
cases verdict on circumstantial evl-
dence alone is more satisfactory as be-
ing true and just verdict than one
founded on direct evidence. The value
of circumstantial evidence depends in
large measure upon the clearness of the
connection between the fact shown and
the fact to he inferred. Circumstantial
evidence must be founded on reason and
experience, establishing a connection
between known and true facts and the
facts sought to be proved. 1t will be
observed that in such evidence not only
must the related facts be established,
but just conclusions must be drawn
from them. 1t is manifest that in such
case it calls for close observation and
high intellectual discrimination and
judgment on the part of the juror than
III cases Of direct testimony. In direct ties.
timony fact alone is to be determined;
in circumstantial testimony not only ls
the fact, or many facts, to be det-rmin-
ed, but just and true conclusions are to
dawn therefrom.
In the first place, each related fact
from which an inference is asked to be
drawn must be distinctly and independ-