The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-05-30
NO VERDICT IN COUNTY CASE:
 JUDGE JONES'S CHARGE TO JURY
of interest to citizens of Montgomery County.
 The charge in full is as folIows

of interest to citizens of Montgomery County. The charge in full is as follows.
 Gentlemen of the Jury-You respond to questions of fact, and the court resnonds to the questions of law. In other words, she court gives you the law, and you ap, ind them to be- The court can no more ye invade your province as triers of facts. a. than you can invade the province of the
 @ aSs ar0s5s MseSsvsn Ot the s dscts are in dispute, or whenever they % are not in dispute but all reasonable men @ sspan syara nos draw from them the same in Tor 10. you to determins.. When the facts are are would dfaw from and ,b An rsSasoabls men admitted facts, and 1t Is the provinee m 'ias os sne court to decide what the law is on
 of your nssd tbat hbsfdE repeat Sannot Invade your province, or say that It .s aoes not desire te do so. and that no on controverted suestion 1s the e courts opinion nevertheless to solve them, as your con seienees dictate. if your views differ from
 In aiding you in on tbs any question of fact
 1uues the court will state some of the facts. but If they are in dispute. I repeat tha as TOT you 70 determine. no matter what are. S~'s' "@e lhe Aacts of Ssiors tbe e. charging you Ypon the merits teI 10 some other matters. Much has been said in your hearing in this case as s@9 @ what the oCurt of Appeals has decid- m the the of this m ruling one. way or the other on contro- ysrted questions of law arising on this Court of Appeals has h decided waat come tne that consciously failed to follow the in- sstiEn,ctions sria, given by higher court in the son against the law itself, and it's judge bench That you may understand that no dVerted n sr ts rulings lin on this trial has n,,ty tL by the Court of Appeals, deem 1t my n'y on ybs oflsy ssfy to explain to you the issue. which must be kept in mind in dstermin- % ing ing @ how far that opinon was meant to tfe triaf' so one thaf issues sou on the present feel though & na' tSe. SoO eoayt @syt see and nOt bound ss to explain its action to you you Snat foowis H is runss IsSobRf R this trial this court
 what may have been it's opinion e on the former trial, the rules laid down by the eoSre heiS eHIr Sn the former tra this bs the settled law of Alabama. that the check from Josiah Morris and Go, drawn ir liyarsI aaycF T 2, , Cocnran Treasurer. and de
 of an ykind, in the meaning either of the special act under which bonds were is- sued or the general. law of this State
 and that Cochran had no right to receive It: that his liability under the terms of the act. which put every other duty in connection with the bonds on the Board or Revenue, except receiving the pro actually. received lawful money the isi pros oe ceeds of the bonds; that his only duty was the negative duty of receiving, and that not having received any money, and having no authority to receive the check. ms pondsmen were not bound, no matter what was done with the check, unless 1t It into actual money; in short that the Legislature intended by the terms of the act under which these bonds were issued, not to trust any person or tribunal what