Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1908-03-26

ing. On election day drinks were served
at the HeadieY house in the presence of the
two MeArthur's to several persons who bad
voted, and one witness, Downs, who voted
afterward. There is testimony from which,
If you believe it, you may find the fact to
be. that other persons were furnished with
drink on that day, and that they went to
and from the Headley house in company
with the defendants either before or after
such persons had been in the polling place.
You are to say from this testimony IL such
persons were voters of the township, and If
heir action was influenced by the drinks
serYed il you find that such drinks were
served to bhem either before or after they
voted, il snch persons did vote. After the
raid OF the constable, Macarthur removed
the whiskey bottles which were iefs in the
house. You are to find what actually took
place in the house aud determine what the
purpose and object of the defendants was
in furnishing such entertainments under the
circumstances, whether it was mere act Of
hospitality, as claimed by he defendant, or
whether it was for the purpose OF exercising
a wrongful or corrupting influence over the
persons present.. Alter election day Joseph
McArtbur went to Fingers hotel and asked
him what he owed for the whiskey, and up
on being told it was six dollars, he paid the
bill for the same This fact may be con-
sldered by you in connection with the
othes facts proven, to ascertain the knowl-
edge of the defendant, Joseph Macarthur,
and the purpose OF the purchase and his in
tent in connection with the transaction.
The law seems to make immaterial the
question of whether or not any voter was
in fact actually influenced wrongfully by
the drinks provided; the inquiry is: was
the drink or enter talnment provided to or
for such voter for the purpose OF corTuptly
influencing his vote TO be cast for Macarthur
or on account Of his having voted for Mo
Arthur?
Now, think, gentlemen Of the jury, /
haye covered all the questions OF law which
are involved IN this case, the construction
of the statute Of the essential elements of
proof which the State must establish TO
your satisfaction, beyond unreasonable doubt,
in order to justify conviction in this case.
Upon she question of reasonable doubt |
think can best define or interpret that
question by reading citation from an in-
portant case where the question was inyoly
ed. The language of she Judge in shat
case is specific and plain, and | will read his
language for your enlightment: A reason
able doubt is a doubt based on reason and
which is reasonable in view of all the evi-
dence, and if alter an impartia comparison
and consideration of all the evidence you
can candidiy say that you are not satisfied
Of she defendants guilt, You haye reason
able doubt; but if after such impartial COM
parlson and consideration of all the evidence
you can truthfully say that you have an
abiding conviction of the defendants guilt
such as you would be willing TO acb upon
in she more weighty and important mat
tiers relating so your own affairs, You have
no reasonable doubts But if you can recon-
cile the evidence before you upon any rea-
sonable hypothesis cnnsistens with the de-
fendant's innocence you should do SO, and
in shat case find them not guilty.
i have had presented to me on behalf of
the State aud for the defendants several re-
quests 80 charge. With reference 80 the
first request presented by the State, I will
refuse TO charge in she language in question
as / haye covered the matter involved in the
other part Of my charge.
/ will charge you the second request: III
the jury believe that Newcomb purchased
or procured the liquor and placed it in the
Headley house knowing 1t was TO be used
so influence persons to vote, and the said
Newcomb did not aid in giving it to per-
sons 60 influence them in voting. they
would be justified in finding a verdict of
guilty against him.
With reference TO the requests TO charge
presented by she defendants, will charge
you the first request
J. 1t is no crime merely to give voter
or voters whiskey upon election day, pro-
vided there be no attempt thereby TO in
fluence such person or persons in voting or
in retaining from voting.
/ will charge the second request -
3 lu order TO justify conviction in this
case, it is not sufficient that the proofs
merely show that the defendants, or any
of them, furnished whiskey to the persons
named in the indictment on election day,
but the proofs must show that the whiskey
was furnished for the purpose of influencing
the persons named in the indictments TO
give or 60 refrain from giving their votes at
the election.
i will charge she third request
g. Before you can convict the defendants
or any OF them, the State must prove be-
ypnd reasonable doubs that Thomas Nc
Arthur was candidate for election for
member of the Township Committee Of
Franklin township; that there was an inn
proper attempt to influence the action of
She voter in voting or in retaining from
voting for the said Macarthur in considera-
tion of she giving by the defendants, or
some of them, of whiskey so such person
or persons; that the persons whose co-duct
is is alleged was sought 60 be influenced by
the defendants were in fact legal voters OF
the township of Franklin.
refuse she fourth request The fifth
request is withdrawn / refuse the sixth
and seventh requests. The eighth request
will charge:
The testimony Of aceomplices should
be received by the jury with tie greatest
caution where such testimony is nos cor
robolated either by the circumstances Of
the case or by their testimony, and the cor
roboration should be as to such material
circumstances as tend dir,c city to establish
th.- guilt OF the defendants. Testimony
- q