The Newtown bee., 1903-05-29

virOnment of either could be a Stimu- Jus to energetic development of their latent forces; apparently no one has ever taken enough interest in them to ascertain. I conceive it would have required more than ordinary strength of mind and stability of character for
 them to have risen superior to their environments and these they don't pos sess. They may be below the average understanding, but who can tell what average understanding is and where the may be that separates imbecility from that which is not imbecility. The person does not live but is imbecile on some subject. Society has established an arbitrary code of morals and con- duct, which is not adapted to all and to which some find it difficult to ad- just their actions. The violations of this moral code by these two has been fragrant and notorious. The evidence diScloses that they were officially driv- en from both Sherman and BroOkfield for unlawful coha habitation. But none of these outraged communities took the legal course to suppress it, as they might have done. Section 1856 of the General Statutes furnishes very eff cient and thorough remedy meeting the contention of the state precisely and which would bring the primarily guilty parties upon the record instead of endea vOring to punish those who change a meretri- V<,S0 ln<s sv,4o hot 3S and respectable by uniting the natural parents of an illegitimate child. The
 moral tone of the community is
 not lowered by such marriage and
 that society that endured the illegitimate relation ought not to
 be so sensitive as to be offended
 at one which is legitimate. The dan ger of imbecile issue is not increased
 as no distinction can be discovered be-
 tween an illegitimate imbecile and one
 that is legitimate. In rendering my
 decision in this case l am sensible of every obligation as an official with
 duty to the public to see that crime
 does not escape it's just penalty, but I am also sensible to the fact that an
 individual charged with crime is equally under protection of the law.
 That imposes an equally positive duty
 on the court to see that no injustice
 is done. The defendants in this prose cution are uboth reputable men
 whose standing in the community is attested by the relations they hold to
 be repeatedly chosen to perform the
 important political functions that
 these men do without having given
 evidence of their qualification and tn-
 tegrity. Every act of the defendants
 relative to this transaction 50 far as the evidence shows has been official, and in this the law declares that every
 man acting officially shall be presumed
 to have done his duty until the con- trary appears. Booth ys. Booth Ct |, 367; Perry vs. Reynolds B Ct., 535. In the case of Gregory vs. Brooks 37 Ct. |, 372, the court says, "Every positive, energetic and independent man is liable to have Ienemies and to have an unfriendly feeling existing be- tween himself and other in- dividua,S. When such man accepts an office, whose duties, properly exercised
 will necessarily bring him in con- f1ict with the interest and prejudices of others, and those with whom his re- lations are not friendly his motive will naturally be suspected and impugned, but he will be protected by the pre- sumption of the law in the perform ance of the duties required of him, un- less 1t be shown that his motives are private and malicious and that he has wantonly and unnecessarily used the power incident to his official station to gratlfy personal spirit of revenge. '' Has the state shown circumstances and conditions from which probable cause can be inferred. Judge Carpenter in Thompson vS. Beacon Valley Rubber Co.,, 56 Ct. 49S, defines probable cause as follows: Probable cause is the exlst- ance of such facts and circumstances as would excite in a reasonable mind belief of the guilt of the person charged of the offence of which he is charged. 'andin Stone vs. Stevens F Ct. 229, the court says that mere suspicion or conjecture does pot amount to prob able cause. In determining whether or not the evidence submitted fulfillS the requirements of prOba ble cause I shall say that in relation to the un- becility of Simon and Britton am un- able to decide, believing a question of such vital importance should be de 1 termined by expert. Fortunately I am not obliged to find this fact, for fairly considered and applied I am of this positive opinion the evidence does not show the eXiStance of facts and cir cumStanceS that would lead me to be- | lieve that the defendant or either of l them knew of the imhecility of either Simon or Britton, if such imbecility be fact, and l further find that all they did relative to these parties they Siu officially and under a sense of official responsibility vii h q view to an honest discharge of public duty and that to subject them tO further trial WOll1d he