Evening star., 1908-01-31

atty. not to exceed twenty years mpr's-
onment
Not guilty on the ground Of insanity
at the time tho crime was committed
probably commitment Ia MatteaWan
Asylum.
Presumption Of Innocence.
In opening Justice Bowling impressed
unon the jury the responsibility which was
theirs. telling them tina, they should bear
in mind that upon their verdict dependad
the life or liberty OF the prisoner. Your
verdict must not b" Influenced by any
matter outside TIE record said he.
Neither passion nor sympathy sho1lih
sway YOU in Your deliberations You
must not speculate or guess as 10 matters
in evidence here. but must decide The is-
sue solely upon YOUR calm. dispa7siona'c
Judgment az to the weight. crsdtbiltty and
meaning Of the testimony. Nor arc yoii
concerned with. the punishment which,
NAV follow verdict Of guilty at Your
hands Your sole function IN to determine
e any crime has been committed. Its
grade and leave the~ question of penalty
10 those responsible for its imposition.
Justice Bowling told the jurors they
should hear in mind that the prisoner is
presumed 10 be innocent until the Jury
has been convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that he is guilty and that the bur
den OF proof asato every material element
rests upon the prosecution throughout. "
was within the power Of the Jury to ac-
cert or reiert the testimony of any wit
ness. in whole or in part. and also To de-
terunine tho weight or importance 10 ne
given to the testimony of any witness
CredibilitY Of Witnesses.
After explaining at length the consid-
crations which the jurors might take into
account in weighing the testimony of wit
resses. Justice Dowling referred to the
eo-callcd Humrel afidavit.
He had told them that If a witness had
been convicted of crime they might con-
slider that fact in Weighing his testimony
and also that IL they found that any Wit
ness had deliberately testified falsely they
were at liberty to disregard his testimony
entirely.
You will recellect that tho affidavit of
Evelyn Nesbt was not received in eNi-
deace as affording proof of either the
truth or faleitv OF the statements therein
contained said he. but solely for the
purpose of seeking to establish the fact
that the witness had made statements
under oath contradictory or or 1ncohslst-
ent with those made by her upon TINS
trial And IL you find contradictory or In
consistent statements were actually made
by her or by any other witness. as 10
matters actually involved in the main IS
sue, herrin as testified to. YOU may take
that into consideration in arriving at a
conclusion as 20 the credibility of such
witness or witnesses. Blu. contradictory
or inconsistent statements as to trivial
or collateral matters are not TO be con-
sidered by you as affecting the credibility
OF witness.
Degrees Of Murder.
The various degrees OF homicide were
defined and the Justice devoted much time
to Calculating the legal meaning OF the
words .sdelibera ton" and "premeditation. :
These words he said, imply the capacity
a the time Of the crime to think and re-
Hsct and by the use Of these powers to
refrain from deinE a wrongful act. He
said that In the consideration OF dehbera-
ton and generalization the jury might
take into account the acts OF the de-
fendant Immediately preceding the shoot
ing. his acts upon the roof garden and
the incidents attending the shooting 1t
self. a sane man, a voluntary agent
acting upon motives. must be presumed TO
cohte,pelate' and intend the necessary
natural and probable consequences OF his
own acts" he continued.
..is, therefore one voluntarily or willful-
IN does an act which has direct tendency
10 DESTROY anothers life the natural ana
necessary conclusion Is that lie INTENDED
10 DESTROY life You are not to be preJu-
diced by any testimony which reflects
usen the character Of the deoea sed, In
the exc Of the law murder of the vilest
and most abiect Of the human race is as
srext- A..crirae az to murder Its greatest
henefaetor. e......
Hereditary Taint.
There IS no testimony to contsaveri, the
proof that STANFORD White came to his
death as the result of pistol shot wounds
innicted by the defendant. Tie defendant.
under a plea of not guilty, has entered a
specification that at the time of the occur
renee in question he was insane and that
therefore under the law he is not respon-
sible for hts acts at the time i'll question.
Where the defense is insanity. and evil
dence is given tending to establish that
defense the general question is presented
whether the crime was committed by
person responsible for his acts. and the
burden of establishing sanity is upon the
prosecution. and II upon the whole case
any reasonable doubt remains in your
mind as to the defendants insanity, he is
entitled to the benefits. of that doubt and
10 be acquitted upon that ground.
The only question for you to decide Is
whether the defendant was OF was not In
sane on the evening Of June %, loo5. when
1hA shooting occurred. But the testimony
conditions and of subsequent mental and
phyxicai state is received to cast light
upon rhe question Of defendants > mental
condition at the time i'll question. The
proot OF antecedent acts Is. line the proof
OF hereditary taint. offered for the purpose
of casting further light upon his then con-
dition the point at issue. by proving his
earlier and recurrent or continuous mene
tai state.
You will weigh the testimony of the ex-
he case. You are not bound by 1t unless
you deem it worthy of your credenee.
Plea of Insanity.
To conclude. If YOU are satisfied be-
yosd 4 reasonable doubt upon the proof
that At the time of the commission of
tire act charged In the Indictment the de-
PENDANT knew the nature and quality of
Ihe act he was doing and that the act
WAS wrong. YOU will find him guilty OF
such degree of crime as under the law
as heretofore laid down the evidence
las satisfied YOU of his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. II. on the contrary
YOU are satisfied upon the proof that al
the time OF the commission OF the act
,harEcd in the Indictment the defenda nj
MAS laborine under such defect of rea-
Son as either not to know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing or rot
TO know the act was wrong. Or III YOU
entertain a reasonable doubt as TO whetb-
er the defendant was lahoring under sucf
q defect of reason as not to know tho
nature and quality OF the act lie was
doing. or not TO know the act was wrong
YOU viii acout tho defendant upon Tn.
ground Of insanity.
AT l:ls pm. Justice Bowling ordered
q recess until pm.
Jury returned from lunch Al 2aJ D. m
lprHrrAnv TAFT