Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-02-26

of separate individual acts tending to show
common design in cases like the one
which you are now called upon to- con-
slider. The common design is the essence
of the charge, and to prove Ii 1t is not
necessary to prove that the parties actu-
ally came together and actually agreed in
terms to have that design and to pursue 1t
by common means. Therefore, If you find
from the evidence that the parties charged
in the Indictment knew of the object to be
accomplished, and all Intentionally par
ticfpated in the transaction In furtherance
of the common design and purpose to de-
fraud the United States. then you may find
that there was a tacit understanding, and
so far the conspiracy is concerned. that
is sufficient to constitute the offense There
need be no specific agreement
Guided by Circumstances.
TT is from the circumstances attending
a criminal act, or series of criminal acts,
that we are. as rule. able to detect and
to/be convinced that they are the result not
merely of individual. but the product or
outcome of concerted or associated action,
If the effect of all the facts and circum-
stances considered together is such as to
satisfy you that the defendants combined
and concurred in the adoption of means
TO be employed in furtherance of a common
design charged in the Indictment, that is,
thay they, with guilty knowledge partici-
pated in the conspiracy charged in the in
dictment, then there is sufficiency of proof
to warrant you in conyicting them, even in
the absence of direct and positive proof Of
the existence of such conspiracy. The con-
spiracy charged may not be directly proven,
but you may infer it from the circumstances
attending this case if they be sufficiently
strong and convincing so as to satisfy you
or the existence of such conspiracy. If
IT satisfactorily appears from the evidence
that the defendants were pursuing
the same object, to wit, the OBJ
Ject set out in the Indictment and gen.
uyif h f1n
ing, one part of an act, and the other
completing it, or Jointly performing the
same act or acts for the attainment of the
common object charged in the Indictment.
you may draw the conclusion that there
was conspiracy.
Circumstantial Evidence Defined.
Such an offense is rarely. IL ever, proven
by direct testimony. Evidence in proof of
conspiracy may be, and from the nature of
the case generally must be, circumstantial.
By 'circumstantial evidence is meant evil
dence which proves a fact. or series of
facts, from which the fact of guilt is in
ferred. This kind of evidence is equally
competent In contemplation of law as direct
evidence. when the facts are such as to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt If
such were not the case the administration
OF the law in many instances would be i'm
potent to punish the guilty and to shield
society from the consequence of crime
therefore, the duty of the jury is to de-
termine carefully. upon all the testimony
whether the discriminating circumstances
offered in evidence from which they are to
INFER guilt are proved beyond reasonable
doubt
Il am unable to give you a general rule
as to what constitutes proof in any par
tcular case. Each is rule unto ITSELF
ana Is to be determined upon its peculiar
circumstances. but all circumstances as
proved must be consistent with each other
ana, taken together, they must point to
quit beyond a reasonable doubt.
In considering this case 1t may con-
Germ you to know the law as to the crimi-
nai1ty OF one who becomes a party to a
combination to do an unlawful thing after
tnoSe VINO We're originally in it had al
ready formed the unlawful design, or, in
other words, the conspiracy. 1t is the law
that one who, at any stage of the trans
action, comes in with the intention to aid
In the furtherance of the illegal object
Is guilty equally with those who originally
planned the conspiracy.
Introduced by Government.
Evidence has been introduced by the
government as to declarations made by the
defendants, Samuel A. Croft, DiIler B.
Croft. George E. Lorenz and August w.
Machen after the alleged conspiracy had
ceased to exist. These declarations can
only be considered by the jury against the
parties making them, and then only for the
purpose of connecting or coupling them
with the conspiracy. if they should find that
conspiracy had been entered into, as
charged In the Indictment. This evidence
is not to be considered by the jury in con-
sidering the question as to whether or not
the defendants are guilty of the crime of
conspiracy. but only as tending to prove the
relation which the parties making the same
may have had to any conspiracy that may
have existed prior to that time
The defendants have gone on the wit
ness stand and testified in their own be-
half. It, therefore, becomes my duty to say
to you that you ought to scrutinize their
testimony, in view of the fact that they
are interested In the outcome of this trial
But In doing so, do not wish to be under
stood as saying that you should not be-
Heve the testimony of the defendants be-
cause of the fact that they are Interested:
and II, after considering their testimony
and the circumstances under which it was
given. you are of the opinion that they
have told the truth about the transaction
1t is as much your duty to give credit to
what they may have stated as 1t Is to be-
lieve any other witness who may have tes-
tilted during the progress of this trial.
IF upon the whole evidence the jury are
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
the defendant, Machen, was superintendent
of the free delivery system, and that he
and the defendants, George e. Lorenz, Dill
Ter B. Croft and Samuel A Croft, or any
TWO or more OF them, entered into a con-
spiracy whereby the Groffs, or either of
them. We're, through the instrumentality of
Machen. to sell the fasteners offered in EVIL
dence to the government at a price in ex-
cess of that which they would otherwise
have sold the same to the government or
individuals. and that the proceeds of such
sales were to be divided among the afore-
said defendants, or any two or more of
them. then said defendants, or any two or
more of them. who entered into such con-
spiracy, are guilty as indicted.
In Whole or In Part.
You may find the defendants guilty as
to each count charged in the Indictment
or you may acquit them as to some counts
and find them guilty as to others, as the
case may be; and If. after carefully con-
sidering the evidence, you are satisfied that
one or more of these defendants are not
guilty. you may return verdict of not
guilty as to such defendants. But under a
charge of conspiracy. before you can return
a verdict of guilty. you must find that at
least two of the defendants are guilty of
the conspiracy as charged in the indictment;
that Is to say. you cannot find one defend
ant guilty and return verdict of not guilty