Norwich bulletin., 1919-02-13
JURY STOOD 10 TO z IN HOLMES CASE CASE

a wanton disregard OF whether life |
should be taken or not. The law also
says it is possible to infer malice
from the brutality and atrocity of an
assault made.
If you should find that this assault
was committed in the course of COM
hitting burglary, you must find an
intent to commit crime. If you fin3
the accused was in that house to
commit a burglary of that note or
something else, the law would carry
over to the assault the element of
criminal purpose and you would be
justified in deciding there was mall
ice.
AS to how 'aforethought" applies,
the judge said that IN order to find
intent to murder, the jury must not
only find malice but malice afore-
thought. which means that malice was
present before the assault was COM
rnitted. There must be time to pro-
duce or to cooperate to produce the
condition OF mind to make the as
sailt.
In conclusion, he said that the state
does not desire any innocent man
should be punished but does desire the
punishment of the guilty. It does not
| subscribe to the argument that it
were better to allow a thousand gull
| ty men to escape than to punish one
man unjustly. The only test for the
jurors to apply to this case was the
| test of proof beyond reasonable
| doubt, and they were not TO be sway
ed by the arguments of counsel In in
| tel preting the evidence. but by theiy
own Judgment as they applied it to
the evidence.
| In the course of his charge Judge
Maitbie had mentioned that there
| were four possible verdicts guilty as
charged of assault with Intent to kill
and murder, guilty of assault with in
tent to kill, which would be where
malice was not shown guilty Of SIM
rle assault, or not guilty.
If there were any reasonable doubt
in the minds n the Jurors as to the
crime committed, he advised them
they should give the accused the bene-
fit of the doubt and return a verdic;
for the lesser degree of crime.
| Jury Asks For Testimony.
Court took recess while the jury
was out. At 1915 they sent word te
the judge through Sheriff Sidney a
Brosyn that they would like to have
Tread to them the sterogra phic notes
Of the evidence Of Mr. Scarborough a:
to the blood on the left glove of Mr.
Holmes.
i The judge called the court TO orde,
ard told the attorneys of the re!ues
which the court had the power 4
, grant if it saw fit. Aver a short dis
cussion with the attorneys it wa
agreed that all the testimony f MIR
Scarborough, both on direct and eros
examination, should be read TO tn
jury.
! AS it was then 1915 Judge Maltbi
declared the noon recess and directet
that Sheriff Brown arrange fer tn
: jury to go to dinner together il
charge of the sheriff. He took them t
a restaurant on Broadway and la
5 them back at 1.45, when sst9nogra pho
5 Graham took the witness stand an
/ read his notes to the jurors who the
went back to their room.
States Attorney Hull said ate
l court adjourned Wednesday thai h
: | expected to try the case again at tn
| May ters1 of The superior court
. New London.
g It was learned after court adjourn
= ed on Wednesday that az one time til
= jury was within one ballot of reach
0 ing unanimous verdict OH guilty {
q simple assault. When the first infor
0 mai ballot in the jury room was take
- there were some for guilty with rs
Il sau1t with intent to kill, some #
+ guilty OF simple assault. and one f
I not guilty. In subsequent ballots II
III to 1 vote was reached as alreaC
s referred to. On the last ballot befol
n the disagreement was reported OIL
o rlore Juror had joined the one WI
: had voted mot guilty from the frs