The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1911-01-25
LEoNA LORD CONVICTED
Continued From Page One) .

daughter, must be very carefully
scrutinized.
You should also take into consid-
Grafton the means of observation of
the witnesses as to what they may
testify their accuracy in the detail
ing of matters; how far they are cor
roborated or contradicted by other
evidence in the case; the reasonable
ness or unreasonableness of their
stories. These are all matters, gen
tlemen, that go to you for your con-
sideration to enable you to deter
mine the credibility of the witness.
If you find apparent inconsistencies
between the evidence of different
witnesses, it is your duty to reconcile
these inconsistencies, if you can do so,
upon some reasonable hypothesis.
You are not to believe that a man
is falsifying upon the witness stand
until some conflict, irreconcilable
conflict of evidence forces that belief
upon your mind, but when you find
such conflict, then you must deter
mine whom you will believe and
whom you will not There are
twelve men of you in the jury, and
one will remember one part of the
evidence and another another part,
anu bCLNCCh al vi yOu lNGlNS lIIllC
of Importance will be likely to es-
cape you, and as you go in the jury
room and discuss the evidence, you
will determine where the truth lies.
Counsel for the defendant have
submitted certain legal propositions
in writing for us to answer. AS leg
al propositions they are all correct,
and are as follows, and the answers
to them will be considered by you
in connection with our general
charge.
DEFENDANTS Points.
|. Conviction of murder in the
first degree can be justified only as
the Commonwealth establishes by
evidence specific intent to take life;
and while the law regards the cir
cumstances that deadly weapon was
used as evidence, that a specific in
tent to kill existed, it is never so far
conclusive as to such fact, as to take
the question of the intent from the
jury, who alone must judge of the
intent
Answer This point is affirmed
2. Murder in the first degree is
limited to wilful, deliberate and pre-
meditated killing, and the presump-
tion from the use of G deadly weapon
arises no higher than murder of the
second degree.
Answer. This point is affirmed We
have so stated the law in our gener-
al charge.
3. If the jury finds that the de-
fendant believed that her son, Mill
ard, was in imminent danger of griev-
GUS bodily harm of an imminent peril
to his life, by the attack of William
Lord, and rushed to his assistance
in such belief, and in furtherance of
such assistance, deemed necessary by
her, struck Silas e. Lord with pick,
without malice and generalization,
her act for her son would not con-
stitute higher crime than if such
act had been in her own defense.
Answer. This point is affirmed,
and you will consider with this pro-
position the evidence of the defend
ant that she did not strike Silas e.
Lord and had no reason to do so.
A. If the jury believes that Silas e.
Lord made an attack or violent as
sault and battery upon Leona Lord,
who was much the inferior of the
said Silas e. Lord in size and weight,
and that this was done in the pres
ence of Samuel Reed who at the time
was an employee of the said Leona
Lord, and they also find that this at
tack so excited the passion of Samuel
Reed as to destroy all self-control,
and that in this condition of ungoV-
ernable rage and without sufficient
cooling time, he struck Silas e. Lord
fatal blow, the grade of the crime
so committed by Samuel Reed would
a M IN 10 n 1Ql1 1tnr
And if the jury find Leona Lord did
actually aid and abet Samuel Reed
in the commission of said crime, her
guilt under such circumstances
would not rise higher than man
slaughter.
Answer. This point, as a general
proposition of law, is good, and as a
general proposition is affirmed. We
do not, however, call to mind any
evidence which shows that Silas e.
Lord made an attack or violent as
sault and battery upon Leona Lord,
question, however, for you to deter
which would justify any attack upon
him by Samuel Reed. We leave that
question, however, for you to deter
mine and when you consider this
point you will also bear in mind
what | shall say to you concerning
the law of principal of the first de-
gree and principal of the second de-
gree.
s. If the jury are not convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt, either
that the defendant aided and abetted
Samuel Reed in an unlawful killing
of Silas E. Lord, or that she her
self struck the fatal blow with a
pick, the verdict in this case should
be, not guilty.
Answer This point is affirmed
and you will consider it in connec-
tion with our general charge as to
what constitutes reasonable doubt.
6. The burden is upon the Com
monwealth to establish beyond a rea-
| sonable doubt every ingredient and
element of crime alleged in any
count of the indictment, before the
jury will be justified in finding a
verdict adverse to the defendant
thereon.
Answer. This point is affirmed.
We have already so stated.
AS already stated in the defend
/ q NJ hA ig 10 n