The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-07-28
By corroborative evidence Is meant additional evidence of different character to the same point.

By corroborative evidence Is meant additional evidence of different character to the same point.
 Accomplice Mistrusted
 "The law views with distrust the testimony of an accomplice on ac- count of the motive he may have for laying the responsibility of his crime upon another when, by so doing. he may secure immunity for his own par ticipation Tn the crime charged For this reason, the law exacts such cor roboration. and although the jury may believe that the testimony of an ac- complice Is true, still the jury could not convict the defendant upon such testimony unless they further find that the testimony of the accomplice is cor roborated by other and independent evidence
 This corroborating evidence need not be sufficient in itself to establish the guilt of the defendant. but it must tend in some degree to duplicate and connect the defendant with the con- mission of the crime charged
 Tn order to ascertain whether or not the testimony of the accompiice is corroborated, as the law provides 1t must be before a conviction would be warranted, you should eliminate from the case the evidence Of the ac- cofnplice and examine the evidence or the other witnesses with the view of ascertainins if there be evidence tend ing to connect the defendant with the offense If there Is. the accomplice Is corroborated; if there is no inculpatory evidence, there Is no corroDoration though the accomplice may be cor roborated in regard to any number or facts sworn to by him.
 "In this case, the State relies upon tN ncto the connection of the defendant with the conspiracy sought to be proven by the evidence taken in connection with the direct testimony of the ac" complice, Harry Orchard
 "In order to justify an inference of legal guilt from circumstantial eVi- dence; the existence of the inculpatory facts must be absolutely incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory, and incompable or explanation on any reasonable n.y. pothesis other than that of his guilt.
 should Consider Promises. 'Tf you believe from the evidence that the witness, Harry Orchard. was induced or influenced to become a wit ness and to testify in this case by any promise of immunity from prosecution or punishment, or by any hope held out to him that if he testified against the
  or punished. then the jury should tako such facts into consideration in deter mining the weight which ought to De given to testimony so obtained Such testimony should be received by the fury with caution and scrutfnlzed with great care.
 And if from the evidence 1t appears that any favors have been extended oy the authorities of the State or idano to the witness. Harry Orchard. ana there is any promise either expressed or implied, relating to further favors to be received by him on account or his testimony in the case. then those are proper matters for the considera- tion of the jury. as affecting the tred- ibility of his testimony.
 Certain articles have been intro duced in evidence from The Miners Magazine for the sole purpose or de- termining whether or not any 'notlVe existed upon the part of the defendant to participate in the offence charged in the indictment and not for tine our- pose of establishing in any wise the commission of such an offence.
 "The jury Is further instructed that By statutory provision the defendant Tn criminal case is made a competent witness in his own behalf. and where he testifies. as in this case. becomes the same in all respects as any other witness, and his testimony must be tested by the same rules or tests that are applied to other witnesses, and the jury may take into consideration the interests that he have in the case in determining the weight to be given to his testimony.
 ''In corfclusion, you are to determine the question as to whether or not the defendant killed and murdered Frank