The evening Republican., 1902-10-01
FAHEY JURY
MAY DISAGREE.
The Twelve Men Trying His
Case Have Been Out Since
Yesterday Afternoon

I y
o'clock the twelve men who hav
the former street and sewer di
rectors case in their keeping, hav
been striving for a verdict. Up un
til 2 2o'clock it had failed to reach
verdict and it looks as if the bod,
! will disagree.
After transacting some civil bu
siness this morning court recessed
until $50 o'clock at which time tht
Fahey jury may work report.
In his charge to the jury. Chiel
! Justice Lore said:
Gentleman OF the Jury: Patrick
Fahey is charged in the indictment
In this case with subornation Of per.
jury.
In order to convict Of this crime,
you should be satisfied from the evil
dence,
~ That the testimony Of Van.
SAINT, the witness claimed to have
been suborned, was false;
| '(2 That it was given to him
willfully aud corruptly, knowing it
to be false;
(O That Fahey knew or believed
that sucn testimony was false:
(4) And that he also knew or be.
leived that Vausant woul dwillfully
and corruptly so testify.
(5) That Fahey induced or pro.
cured Vansant to give such falae tes-
timony.
1t has been tearsely said by the
Court in Common wealth VS.. Douglas,
3Met. 245, "To constitute the crime
of subornation of perjury, the party
charged must have procured the
commissIcn Of the perjury, by Incit-
ing, instigating and procuring the
guilty party to commit the crime. -
Your attention is now directd to
some of the principles o; law govern
Ing this case.
Every person charged with crime
is presumed by the law to be inno-
cent; and that presumption remains
as a protection aud shield until the
crime is proved to the satisfaction 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.
1t was formerly held that two with ess.
es were Necessary, because otherwise
there would be nothing more than
the oath of one man against
another, upon which the jury could
not safely ccnvict. But this strict
ness has long since been relaxed; the
true principle Of the rule beinemere-
ly this, that the evidence must be
something more than sufficient to
coun terbalance the oath Of the pris
oner, and the legal presumption of
his innocence. - Greenleaf on Ev.,
Sec 257.
'The degree OF credit which ought
to be given to the testimony of an
accomplice is a matter exclusively
within the province of the jury. 1t
has sometimes been said that they
ought not to believe him, unless his
testimony is corroborated by other
evidence, and, without doubt, great
caution in weighing such testimony
is dictated by prudence and good
reason. But there is no such rule
Of law; it being expressly conceded
that the jury may, if they please,
act upon the evidence Of the acc ON
plice, without any confirmation of |
his statement. But on the other
land, judges in their discretion, will
advise jury not to convict of felony
lpon the testimony Of an accomplice
llone and without corroboration;
md it is now 50 generally the prac-
ice to give them such advice, that
ts omission would be regarded as
IN omission of duty on the part of
he judge" 1T may be regard
'd, as the settled course of practice
lot to convict prisoner in any case
# felony upon the sole and uncor-
oborated testimony Of an occom-
lice. II Greenleaf. Edv., Sec. $50.
The same rules are applicable to
he case of witness who has perjur-
d himself in a former trial and; in
ases Of this character there should
ot be conviction Of a felony upon
he uncorroborated testimony Of
UGH a witness.
All the presumptions of law in
ependent Of evidence, are in favor
f innocence; and every person is
resumed to be innocent of the Of
snce charged until he is proved to
Q guilty. If upon such proof there
reasonable doubt remaining,
le accused is entitled to the benefit
it by an acquittal, for it is not
efficient to establish a probability,
trough strong one, arising from
le doctrine of chances, that the
let charged is more likely to be
'ue than the contrary; but the evi.
ence must establish the truth of
le fact to a reasonable and moral
,rtainty; certainty which con-
nces and directs the understanding
I'd satisfies the reason and judg
ent Of those who are bound to act
,nscientiously upon it,"
Governed by these instructions
10 the law,y are to reach your ;
rdct ia this case from. the evidence
hlch you have heard in th is court
I'D from that alone.
The case challenges your most
lreful aud conscientious consider.
ion. 1t 10 your duty alike to see
at the innocent are acquitted and
at the guilty are convicted.
II, therefore. from the evidsuce Ia
10 case, you are sat.s6ed beyond