The evening world., 1912-10-24


eambiers' conspiracy. He said on
THE score:
1T has been contended that Rosen-
thai. because OF certain traits OF char
acter. was very unpopular among the
gamblers and that they-the gamblers
killed him. and In order TO escape they
now seek to place the blame upon Beck
er. In considering that I instruct that
even II Rose and webber were hostile
enough to engender expressions AMI
threats to kill Rosenthnl that would
not be an excuse for Becker II he
awaited himself Of their hostility 70 Ro.
eenthAi TO have Rosenthal killed because
Of his own hatred.
III . stranger snters q conspiracy al
ready made he becomes . principal.
"Refsrsncs has been made here 20 .
motive. Motive 10 not necessary whore
proof Of Q crime b clear. Whore the
10 prove Q motive In addition 70 try.
ins 10 prove direct connection WITH the
crime the people have tried also 10 show
q motive that would have inspired
Becker 70 the oommtssion Of thb muir
Der"
Justice Cor wsne on to say that the
motive suggested was Beoker's dread
Of exposure by Rosenthsa and subse-
ausnt charges Of wronsdoing.
JUDGE DISCUSSES THE Posi-.
eiLtTY OF MOTIVE.
TT 10 IN evidence that no entered into
partnsrshfp with Rosenthai In che gam
bling house and that becauss Of COM
plant from Ais superiors, Becker
Trainer . raid on Rosenthal Rosenthai
refused to stand for the fake raiA and
refused 70 ssvs money TO Becker. Re-
tivA the gambler determined 10 reveal
70 the public his connections With
Bsohsr. He he'd gone 10 the ns@vpevsru
With bis anAawt the Distriot-Axternsy
had announced he would tnysstigaxs and
Grand Jury subposnas had been issued.
'.Ths defendant rsoognis1nS the dae-
psration Of Ids own position. my have
been driven b order ths murder 10
save hfmseaf. To remove Rossnshai
would have besn % stin MS vuacs %
that 10 could not make the rsvsiax3oos
he wNs threatsntug. There. n the
state's contention. was the motive o<
the defendant Tor ordering ths t3nang.
There v no ciaim in this evidence
nat h came IN d1rsct contact WITH
Rosentha,. but v { set up that h en-
ploysd Rose to act for him IN his reia-
lions with Rossnthal.
Now you have IN these facts IN
your minds and you must deliberate
niles that there was any motive, and ~
sa1 before yo0 must put upon tho
prosseutboo the burden OF proof"
"xAs sUls Of isv which requires
eorroboga11oa az IN oecomplios does
aet SeVuATs eessebosatton Of every
DEAN 81 tAs 0tosy Of The accom-
pl1oo. ~ SeQuaSos e1ly soyfobors-
t3ea o. sasaSA d ~ aooosnpl1cs's
stesy ~ - yssvs thae tAs story u
enthusiastically tSAs.
1T 10 for the jury to decide whether
the eorroboration 10 sufficient In this
case to warrant you In believing the
Ion.
NOW TIVE LAW EAvoRs THE
DEFENDANT.
II have spoken OF ciscumstantial
svidencA Il II the rule Of law that
II such evidence -ds capable Of tvo
constructions, one capable Of con-
struction for the defense and the
other for the People. the Jury must
accept that construction which u
favorable to the defendant"
the legal definitions OF direct" and
"ctrcumstantiar' svsadAnos. and con-
tinusd:
Even sye-witnsssss may diner In
detail. ana you must take that story
which lmprsesas you mos. with its
truth"
The Court then read extracts from
various decidons Of the higher courts
- to the admissibiiity OF cfrcumstantial
evidence before Jury and the weight
to be given BY the fury to such evidence.
He repeated his charge that the defenSs
must b given the benefit Of any doubt
q: 70 e'reamstand" sv'dsnoe' ana
.. .rSm o.. ~. s.,.,.. h.. n.,a.a
.. ~. $500 e. ~. turv
~, $3.50 .ns 49, t,rr. =,
=. ~. IN ths." Oh. go
~vusN 49, , 49, .snns.,. "a
! ~ .oup0u - 60 -
nost am
mem WI 49, ..,- 90, -. v,,,r,,,.
a"c N. no. 1910 $500.
ous e"u"sn' -"
askeu N " vns o - ~. 80
Judge S: s Coz chars. TN. Sam seAspp: opp: