The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1902-10-15

uld this were his clerks or agents,
or whether he was the proprietor
Of these particular establishments.
You must determine the whole cas-
from the facts and circumstances
proven as existing prior to the
finding OF the Indictment. If you
are satisfied from the evidence be-
Yond reasonable doubt that this
defendant was the proprietor and
did sell this beer and whisky, eth
er personally or through his clerks,
oartenders and so forth. yonr yer.
iict should be for the Government;
your verdict should he a verdict Of
guilty. fyou are not sAt,sii "a et-
yond reasonable doubt that be
was the proprietor or that be nid
ell this stuff through his clerks
md bartenders and agents, then
your verdict should be for the de-
fendant--a verdict Of not guilty.
Mr.. Gilbert: The court win per
nit us to reserve sn exception to
ch d every charge gwen. aud
more especially to the remarks OF
the court on the condition OF ar
fairs 10 Chiekasha. We also ask
the conrt, inasmuch as the cour
charged as to the ownership Of the
building, that the court instruct
the jury that that must be estab-
lIshed to the satisfaction Of the
jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 4
believe that is the law.
The G urt. The only Grim rha
is charged here is the sale. These
other circumstances are simply
questions Of evidence Of that fact.
Mr.. Gilbert. We ask the curt
now 10 give US the regular charge
on eircumrtantial evidence.
The Court. l don't know That
you are entitled to a charge Of that
kind.
Sc. johnson. We want il our
selves. We think it ought to be
given.
rhe Court. Gentlemen Of the
Jury: The evidence in this case
upon the part Of the G Governm4n, is
wholly circumstantiaI. and the
court ins,ructs you that circum-
stautial evidence is legal and com
petent ia criminal cases, and il it
is of such a character as to exclude
every reasonable hypothesis other
than that the defendant is guilty,
it is entitled to the same weigh a.
direct testimony.
The court instructs you that
what Is meant by circumstantial
evidence in criminal cases is the
proof Of such facts aud circum
stances connected with or sur
rounding the commission OF the
crime charged, as tending to show
The guilt or innocence OF the party
charged; and il these facts and cir
are Sufficient to satisfy
the jury Of the guilt OF the defend
ant beyond a reasonable doubi.
then such evidence i sufficient
authoriz- jury 10 finding a YER
diet Of guilty.
You are instructed, as a natter
of law, that when q conviction for
4 criminal offense is sought upon
evidence alone, the
Government must not only show
BY rreponderance OF evidence
hat the alleged facts and circum
stances are true, but they must be
such facts and circumstances as
lre absolutely incompatible upon
my reasonable hypothesis with the
innocence Of The accused and in
,apable Of explanation upon any
hypothesis other than
hat Of the guilt Of The accused.
In criminal cases, where the
relies upon circum
Itantlal evidence alone for con-
'iction, ii is not enough that all |
he circumstances proved are con-
istent with. and point to the de-
guilt To aufhorize 4
conviction upon circumslantial evl-
ienee alone. the circumstances
must NOT only all be in harmony /
with the guilt of the accused but
hey must be Of snch a character
hst they can not reasonably be
rue in the ordinary nature ofI
hings and The defendant be inno-
ient They should not only be |
with the prisoners guilt.
ut they must be inconsistent with /
IA u t,fhnr Iao4, IN. a Nj. 49,.