The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1907-04-11
Jury Bring in a Verdict After
Hours Of Work Finding Auto
mobile Driver Guilty"
END COMES IN LONG CASE
Attorneys for Collier Will Ask for /:
New Trial, and Sentence is Sus-
pended Pending Action of the
Court.-To Decide Later

"Ted" Collier was found guilty of
manslaughter In the fourth degree
by the jury in the Circuit Court
Friday afternoon. The jury reached
an agreement just after three
O'Clock and just after it had received
a long instruction from the court as
to the questions at Issue IN the case.
Collier was not sentenced by the
court, and as soon as the jury am
nounced it's verdict the attorneys for
the defense moved that judgment be
suspended and for new trial of the
case. Judge Belden took the motion
under advisement.
Collier was in Court when the YER
dict was rendered and he made no
statement in regard to it.
1t is understood that if the new trial
is denied the attorneys for the de-
Tense will at once appeal the case to
the Supreme Court of the State.
While there was quite a crowd in
Court when the verdict was rendered
there was no demonstration.
While reading the original instruc-
lions the court was interrupted by
Juror Shippee, the foreman of the
jury with question. He asked if the
jury would understand the second
proposition of the court THAT the
deceased received his wounds from
an automobile" meant that the
wounds were made by an automobile
as distinguished from any other We
hicle and if the question implied that
they were made by any one automo-
bile or merely putting all automobiles
in one class.
The court decided that the instruc-
ton referred to any automobile or
automobiles, and not specifically to
that driven by Collier.
After the reading of the instruc-
tions had been concluded the case
was again given to the jury, and it
was sent back to the box.
Instructions Favor Defense
The instructions of Judge Be1den
given late Wednesday afternoon were
regarded among attorneys as favor
able to the defendant with the ex-
ception of the instructions which re-
ferred to the question of reasonable
doubt" which were more favorable
to the state. In this regard the Judge
held that the jury could not hold
some fancied conjecture as a 'reas-
enable doubt"
The court said in part: SIT is not
necessary to have direct and positive
evidence of a crime if circumstantial
evidence shows every other hypothesis
or reasoning in regard to the case.
All points must be proved to a moral
certainty and all theories must be
shown to be improbable before the de-
PENDANT is found guilty"
On the question of culpable negli-
gence the court gave the New York
decision definition which has been
repeatedly cited in the case and con-
tinuing the court said: "If such a
degree of negligence is not shown be-
yond a reasonable doubt you must
find the defendant not guilty"
The court instructed the jury that
the fact that the evidence had shown
no other person to be guilty of the
crime charged, was not sufficient to
find the defendant guilty. IF you
have two remarkable theories" said
the court, "both reasonable and con-
sistent to the evidence and one of
them in favor of the defendant, the
law would force you to sfnd the de-
PENDANT not guilty"
Excludes Much Evidence (.
The Court held that evidence given
gby witnesses in former hearings was
not competent at the trial save for
the sake of showing the credibility
that should be given to the witness by
the Jury. He said that only the evil
dence in the case should be considered
and not the statements of the counsel
in the case if they did not agree with
the evidence. In this regard he said
eff you find that any witness has
testified falsely you may exclude any
or all of his testimony. The Court
then laid down the regular rules for
the considering of evidence and de-
clared "The fact that the defendant
has or has not testified in the Court is
no presumption Of his guilt and the
law holds that you must disregard
such fact in arriving at your YER
dict"
Continuing the court said: Gin
order to warrant conviction on cir
cumstantial evidence you must find
hat every essential and necessary
fact has been proved in such way
IS to amount to a moral certainty,
and this must show that the accused