Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-06-17

into the evidence as 1t concerned all and each of the accused. They should remember that the burden Is always on the state in criminal cause and the mantle of innocence envelopes the accused until he is found guilty. The State must establish its case beyond 8 reasonable doubt The accused, either all or individually, should be given the benefit of every doubt, The claims of both sides are complicated and would require from the jury much investiga- tion. The court here pointed out the elements of the crime of conspiracy, that if one joined in after the plot had been planned he was as guilty as those who had planned 1t.
 Both sides are at variance on all the points advanced except that an as- sault was made. A conspiracy may be shown by the acts committed and by the declarations of those who commit ted them, the state claims Then he related all the facts claimed by the state. The defense. while not deny ing the assault, claims it was done by WoIcott. In order to shield himself he threw the blame upon them because they are strikers, and that his whole purpose was not to kill or murder, but to punish Merna and Morrissette for taking strikers places. Also that the placing of the stones on the track was not to obstruct or injJre the troll ley company but merely to shield them in beating the trolleymen.
 The state claims that during the as- sault remarks were made showing that the assaulters were strikers. The de fense replies that those who made the assault were others than Vandemark, Marsh, etc. They claim also that the state witnesses were contradicted and that Wolcott is unreliable and untrust- worthy, as shown by his own evidence If the jury find that the accused were not present at the planning of assault it should be taken into consideration.
 Four -Verdicts Can Be Given.
 He painted the difficulties one would have in recalling his movements of yesterday as compared with those of a month ago. At first it may have been hard to remember, but after reference to paper or friends one may easily get the information wanted and may not be able to tell of his whereabouts on a day to which his attention was not called. The jury should remember this. There are four verdicts which can be given-one on each of fhe four counts charged with intent to murder Mefna, assault to murder Nor rissette, conspiracy to injure the trol- ley company and conspiracy to injure the employees of that company.
 An accused party is an interested party and his evidence must be taken into account. The law allows that he can tell the truth, but 1t must be taken into account that he is an interested person. If Wolcott was present from the first to the last, then he is an ac- complice and the jury cannot safely give verdict on his testimony. If Ennis also was at the affair from first to last he is an accompIice and a yer dict should not be given on his tesd- nnoT1y, for 1t is unreliable and un- trustworthy. If, however. he was mere ly a lookeT-on, his testimony is compe- tent. The jury is entitled to discredit Wolootfs evidence or can give it full weight and-Snerit.
 The defense claimed that Wolcott's entire story is discredited and regard ing the Identification of Winnegar and by Merna and Morrissette, they claimed that the means at hand for Identification in the case were not