The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-23

the defense, were alyto admitted.
1. The court instructs the jury that in
order TO convict In any criminal case
two things must. be proven beyond ali
reasonable doubt by the evidence: ~ The
corpus delecti must be established; that
is to say. the crime must have been
| committed. (2J That the accused com
mitted the said crime. See Johnson's
Gaze. 20 G.. sl2.
2. The court further instructs the jury
that the offense with which the accused
stands charged is the obtaining by false
pretenses from Oliver J. Sands. the sum
OF two dollars, and II the accused be
guilty OF any offense under this charge, IL
Is that of petit larceny. but the jury are
further instructed that before the accused
can be convicted OF larceny committed
by false pretense four things must concur:
| % An intent 10 defraud at the time the
money was received. (2) Actual fraud
must have been committed. (3) False pre-
| lenses must be used for the purpose of
| perpetrating the fraud. al The fraud
| must be accomplished by means OF the
| false pretenses.
D. The court further instructs the jury
| that IL they believe from the evidence
that the person or persons who called
| on Mr. Sands called for the purpose of
for the Dorcas Society," and that Sands
knew of the entertainment. and paid
~ for two tickets. which were delivered
| to him. and the benefit was given I'm
accordance with the circular exhibited.
and that the tickets or either OF them
| were used. then IN law there was no
intent to defraud. even though the Jury
may further believe that the said per-
son or persons. may have wiIfuIly de-
ce!ved the said Sands as to their being
| members of the Dorcas Society or as
to the place OF their residence. and the
jury must acquit the prisoner. See
| Fay's case IS Graf. 912.
| 4. The jury ars further instructed that
II they believe from the evidence that
Sands accepted two tickets for the ben
eft referred to in the evidence upon the
| delivery Of the So to the persons who
| called on him. and the regular selling
price of said tickets was 81 each, and
| that the said benefit was given in ac-
| cordance with the circular exhibited to
| him. then In law no actual fraud was
committed, and the jury must acquit the
accused. although the jury may further
believe that Sands parted with his
money under the belief that the Dorcas
Society would get the whole of 1t.
| 5. The court further instructs the jury
| tItit III tIlS NitSc tIlc INV RAISES ITO pre-
sumption against the prisoner. but every
presumption of the law is In favor OF his
4 innocence. Nothing is to be presumed or
| taken by Implication or Influence against
| him; the law preSumes him innocent of
1 the crime with which he Is charged until
he is proven guilty beyond all reasonable
| doubt by competent evidence. and even
| though in this case the jury may be sat
isfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the
| crime charged was committed by a person
or persons other than the accused, they
cannot find the accused guilty unless 1t
shall be clearly and conclusiyely proved.
| beyond all reasonable doubt, that the nc-
| cused had actual knowledge that the false
| Representations were to be made to said
4 Sands, and that he authorized the making
OF same, or concurred therein. Duls
case. % Graf, 965.
No. 6. Refused.
Z. The court further instructs the jury
= that II they believe from the evidence
that the moving or controlling cause I'M
| der which Sands parted with his money
| was that the Dorcas Society would profit
| thereby, through an entertainment to be
| given. and that the said tickets We're
| valid. and could have been, or We're, USED
\ In attending said benefit or entertainment,
| and that the Dorcas Society would have
been benefited, or did benefit. thereby
1 then the jury cannot find the accused
| guilty.
s. The jury is further instructed that IN
ascertaining the facts established ny any
| one witness In a given case. everything
/ stated by him, as well on his cross exam
lnation as on his examination III chlel'
! must be considered by the jury. Facts
| imperfecty stated In answer to one ques-
| ton may be supplied by the answer TO
another. And where, from one statement
| considered by itself an inference may be
deduced, that inference may be strength
ened or repealed by tho facts disclosed IN
another. See Goldnlans Case. floo va.
S65.
o. The court further instructs the Jury
that in determining the weight OF testl-
mony, the appearance OF the witnesses
on the stand, their manner OF tes,llyihs
and their apparent candor and franknesS,
and all the other circumstances SURROUNDS
Ing the giving of the testimony, are prop
err for the consideration Of the jury, see
Horizons case, 90 Va, $50,
TO- The Court further instr1lcts the Jury
that, the essencn of the crime charged
ia the false pretense, and In this partllclu-
| lar case 1t ia necessary not only TO prove
the statements made to Sands, but also
to prove by competent evidence that
those statements We're false. and wers
the moving or controlling cause under
which Sands parted with his money, and
erunless this m hspRp, AeyopAa a,SsAss9n-
M x