Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-10-02


ment in this case with subornation of per-
jury.
At common law, perjury is committed
when II lawful oath IS administered, in
some judicial proceedings or due course of
justice, % person who swears wilfully alb
eolutely and falsely In matter material to
the Issue or point. in question.
Where the crime is committed at the insti-
CATION or procurement of another 1t is
termed subornation Of perjury.
Greenleaf Ey. section i8S.
IN this case IL is charged that Patrick
Fahes suborned, or procured Frederic Van
SAINT to commit perjury.
The crime charged is felony of kigh
grade, 1t is one that touches the admins
tration of justice in vital point,aIsg where
successful In its purpose procures mis-
carriage of justice by inducing false yer-
diets, and thus turns right into wrong.
1t undermines and destroys the conf
depce Of the people in verdicts of juries,
andiopens the way to anarchy, or the right
ing of wrongs by resort to violence instead
Otto courts of justice.
In this State happily the crime Is of rars
occurrence. No such case has heretofore
come within the cognizance OF this court.
This, gentlemen, il the character of the
crime yoa axe called TO pass upon in this
case. 1t is a crime that invokes the sane
tion ct the Almighty to a lie. We have
spoken thus of the gravity of the crime, that
your attention should be directed to the inn
portance OF this case, and to the care and
consideration you should give to 1t.
But the mere magnitude of the crime
charged, however heinous, or however diff
cult 1t may be to prove it, can never justify
conviction unless the guilt of the accused
be proved to the satisfaction of the Jury
beyond a reasonable doubt.
In order to convict of this crime, you
should be satisfied from the evidence.
L. 10 nF ~ H.,
witness claimed to have been suborned, was
false.
2. That it was given by him wilfully and
corruptly, knowing it to be false.
3. That Fahey knew or believed that such
testimony would be false.
4. And that he also knew or believed that
Vansant would wilfuly and corruptly SO
testify.
s. That Fahey induced or procured Van
SAINT to give such false testimony. ii
1t has been terselg said by the court In
Commonwealth VS.. Douglass. 8 Mer. g45,
10 constitute the crime OF subornation of
perjury, the party charged must have pro-
cured the commission of the perjury by In.
citing, instigating or procuring the guilty
party to commit the crime"
four attention is now directed to some of
the principles of law governing this case.
Every person charged with crime is pre-
sutned by the law to BIO innocent, and that
shield until the crime 10 proved to the salts.
faction OF the jury beyond a reasonable
doubt.
The burden of so proving the crime Is
upon the State.
In proof of the crime of perjury, it was
formerly held that two witnesses were neces-
sary, because otherwise there would be moth
ing more than the oath of one man against
another, upon which the jury could not safely
convict. But this strictness has long since
been relaxed; the true principle of the rule
heing merely this. that the evidence must
be something more than sufficient TO
counterbalence the oath of the prisoner,
and the legal presumption of his innocence
Greenleaf on Ev., section 257.
The degree of credit which ought to be
given to the testimony of an accomplice is
matter exclusively within the province of
the jury. 1t has sometimes been said that
they ought not TO believe him, unlesR his
testimony Is eorroborated by other evidence;
and, without doubt, great caution in weigh
ing such testimony Is dictated by prudence
and good reason. But there Is no such rule
of law: 1t being expressly conceded that the
Jury may, If they please, act upon the evil
denee of the accomplice without any confir-
nation of his statement. But on the other
hand, judges in their discretion, will advise
Jury not to convict of felony upon the
testimony OF an accomplish alone and with
out corrohoration; and tits now so qeTier-
ally the practice to give them such advice
that Its omission would be regarded as an
omission of duty on the part OF the judge"
ut may be regarded as the settled
course of practice, not to convict prisoner
In any case of felony upon the sole and I'M
corroborated testimony of an accomplish
Gren., section $50.
The same rules are applicable to the case
OF a witness who has perjured himself in
former trial; and in cases of this character
there should not be conviction of felony
upon the uncorroboruted testimony of such
witness. @ &G 4Ut
The rule governing the weight of evidence
necessary to convict and as to what consti-
tutes reasonable doubt, is clearly stated by
Chief Justice Gilpin In the State vs.. Colds
borough. Houst: Grim. Cas-, Sl6 In civil
cases II is the duty of the jury ''to weigh
the evidence carefully and to find for the
party in whose favor 1t preponderates,
although IL may not be free from reasonable
doubt. But in criminal trials the party
accused is entitled to the benefit of the
legal presumption in favor of innocence.
which in doubtful CASES Is always sufficient
to turn the scales in his favor. It is there
fore rule. of criminal law that the guilt of
the accused must be fully proved, land neither
preponderance OF eyidence.nor any weight
OF preponderating eyidenceis sufficient. I'M
less 1t produces full belief of the fact to the
exclusion of all reasonable docbt in the
mind of the Jury. But that does not import
in contemplation OF law mere possible
doubt; because everything relating to human
affairs and depending on moral evidence is
open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
Ii is that state of the case which after entire
comparison and full consideration of all the
evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in
that condition that they cannot feel any
abiding conviction, to moral certainty, of
the truth of the charge. The burden of
proof is upon the prosecutor. All the pre-
are in favor of innocence; and every person
Is presumed to be innocent of the offense
charged until he is proved to be guilty. II
upon such proof there is reasonable doubt
remaining, the accused is entitled to the
beEett of it by an acquittal, for it is not
sufficient to establish probability. though.
a strong one, arising from the doctrines of
chances, that tho fact charged is more likely
to be true than tho contrary; but the evil
dence must establish the truth of the fact to
reasonable and moral certainty; GER
tainty which conyinces, and directs the
understanding. and satisfies the reason ana
Judgment of those who are bound to act
conscientiousy upon it,
Governed by these instructions as to the
law, you are to reach your verdict in this
case from the evidence which you have
heard in this courtroom and from that alone.
The case challenges your most careful and
conscientious consideration. 1t is your duty
alike to see that the innocent are acquitted
and that the guilty are conyicred. ~
1T, therefore, from the evidence in this
case, You are satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt, that Patrick Fahey suborned or pro
cured Frederic Vansant TO commit the crime
of perjury as charged in the indictment,
your verdict should be guilty. On the other
hand, should you not be so satisfied from
the evidence, it Is. your duty 10 return a
verdict of not guity.sr
#N. -----s----1---- .I.-
. Ball for Laura Bigxar.