Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-10-12

| Augusta. Oct. ~.
Afte, a delierahtion Of II minutes III
the Eennebec county superior court
Saturday afternoon, the iury in the
case of jerry Dionne and joseph Albert
lie Fave, charged with the larceny OF
the sum of $175 from the person of
! Michael Burns, proprietor of the River
| side house OF Augusta returned q YER
dict of guilty of larceny from the
| person. ON the Recommendation of
County Attorney Leigh, that portion of
the Indictment alleging force and vio-
lence Was nole pressed, leaving the
two respondents charged with larceny
| from the person which is the maximum
crime for which the penalty at the most
| is six years in the State prison, while
| for robbery as charged in the original
! Indictment, the penalty may be impris-
onm"nt for life.
, When the verdict was announced
counsel for the two defendants led lex
ceptions ana stated that they would
| carry the case to the law court ~ 81
motion for new trial. The trial Of the
case occupied four days and much in
| tercSt was manifested in its outcome
| A large number of spectators We're
| present during the trial of the cause
| County Attorney Leigh appeared for
the state While lie Fave was defended
by Williamson & Burleigh and Dionne
by Sheldon & Sawtelle and Benedict r.
Mahcr, Esq, of Augusta.
At the opening of court, Saturday
I morning, Attorney Bureigh made an
able closing argument in behalf of LIE
| Fave Then followed Attorney Maher
in a brilliant closing for his client,
Dionne. After the county attorney had
made his closing argument a recess was
taken until 1.30 o'clock, after which
Judge Hall charged the jury. The case
was given to the jury ut 2.14 o'clock
and at 80 it made its report.
Judge Hall charged the jury in part
as follows:
Mir. Foreman and gentlemen of the
jury:
Tiis case has excited considerab bic in
terest in the community. 1t has been
infinitely and carefully and rather
fervently tried. | trust the jury has
been anXiously searching for the truth
in the evidence given by the many
witnesses. You are disinterested and,
II
the presumption that the defendants
i We're innocent Of the crime charged
against them. This presumption re-
mains in their favor until you are con-
WINGED beyond reasonable doubt of their
guilt. This. expression has become
somewhat hackneted by frequent use
by counsel and court but it is none the
less important to remember. Indeed it
is because it is SO important that it is
so frequently used.
The fact that these men have been
indicted must not be considered by YOU
as evidence against them. Many inno-
cent persons have been suspected of
crime and indicted. If you have III any
way heard outside~of the witness stand
or have read any newspaper comment
for or against the defendants or either
of them, your duty Us persons sworn to
be governed by the evidence. requires
/ that you vigorously exclude all such
possible influence from your minds and
look to the evidence alone.
1t is no part Of my province, in what
I shall say to you. to intimate any
opinion upon the weight Of the evil
dence. I shall carefully avoid any such
intimation and in abiding to the evil
dence it will be for the purpose of maxi
| ing clear to you the contentious Of the
| government and the defendants. and Of
giving you such rules of law applicable
to the evidence rs will aid you in de-
terlnining the truth. With you, and
Won alone. is the duty of determining
what that is
The defendants are jointly indicted,
charged here with having stolen from
the person of Michael Burns on March
18th last, the sum Of seven hundred
| dollars. AS the Indictment originally
stood. the defendants We're charged
with robbery, a very serious crime and.
happily, an uncommon one in this
vicinity. After the evidence had been
fully developed, it did not appear to the
county attorney that certain elements
| necessary to establish the crime of rob
( berry as legally understood had been
adequately proven. The county attor-
ney was therefore justified in asking
! leave to withdraw that part of the
charge in the Indictment. This was al
| lowed. and as the indictment now
stands. the defendants are charged
With the still serious crime of larceny
from the person,-or specifically they
are charged with stealing from the
person of Michael Burns a large sum
of money. but without force or violence
or putting him in fear.
The terms, larceny, and larceny from
the person, are too well understood
perhaps, to need lengthy denfition. but
it is necessary that the jury should
| understand clearly what are the essen
tial facts to be proven by the govern
ment, beyond reasonable doubt in
order to establish the guilt Of the de-
| PENDANTS, or either of them.
Larceny is theft. To commit larceny
! is to steal, to take and carry away the
goods or moneys or other personal
property of another. If such property
is so taken from another against his
will or without his knowledge and con-
sent. it is higher grade of crime. sub
jecting the offender to greater punish
ment than simple larceny.
In order to convict of the crime Of
larceny from the person it must be
! proved beyond reasonable doubt, as
AGAINST the defendants:
I. That they took money from the
person Of the prosecutor.