Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-11-29

while II is necessary for the State
TO show that the defendants had
guilty knowledge. II is not required
to show that guilty knowledge as inn
parted to all defendants at one and
the same time, or by one and the same
means Ii Is sufficient To show tnat
each Of the conspirators had guilty
knowledge. II a person. understand
ing ibe unlawful character of a trans
action, assists in the prosecution
thereof i'm any manner with n view TO
forwarding the common purpose or
scheme. he becomes conspirator.
And while combination or agree
ment to do an unlawful act must be
shown, il is not necessary that the act
should he actually done. or II done.
that = party to the agreement prohted
thereby.
Evidence of good character is TO
he taken and considered by the jury
In connection with all the other evil
dcnce I'm the case.
When a conspiracy has beer proved.
the declarations and statements OF
a co-conspirator. made during the OK
istence Of the conspiracy. and in fur
thcrance thereof. are admissible
against all the Conspirators. but de-
claratons and statements made after
the termination Of the conspiracy are
admissible only against the party
making them. and not against a fellow
conspirator, unless the latter was
present when they were made and OK
pressly or by implication acQuiesced in
| them.
! Tho acts. declarations and state
ments Of CO-conspirators cannot bind
! other alleged conspirators until the
state proves TO your satisfaction by
the direct evidence Of co-conspirators.
| or by other direct or cirCumstantial
evidence that an unlawful combination
between the parties existed as charg-
ed In the indictment.
The testimony Of co-conspirator
Is always "a, missible. but Il should he
weighed and ,'nsidered with care. II
IS the practice OF .he courts TO caution
/ jut.es that there should not be a
conviction on such testimony unless
u is Ccrroborated by other evidence in
the case. aside from the testimony of
other co-conspirators. The weight OF
be given 10 the testimony of a Coz
conspirator is for the jury alone. con-
side~eG in view Of all the evidence.
state Y. Steigler. et al. Supra.
II you believe from the evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendants or any two Of them did cor
-uptly and uniawfully consp.re. com
0ine, confederate and agree together
10 do the things charged against them
IN the indictment. your verdict should
he guilty as 20 the two who have no;
pleaded guilty. viz: Ahram L. Frant7
ard Howard r. Frantz, or guilty as
20 one and not guilty as 10 the other
according as the evidence. in your
judgment. shall warrant. State Y
Adams. et al. Supra.
II you are not satisfied beyond z
reasonable doubt that the defendants
or az least two Of them, did corruptly
and unlawfully consp!re. combine
confederate and agree together 20 do
the things charged against them ir
the indictment, your verdict shoul,
be not guilty as 70 both Abram +
/ 4 AA4it1 anu AiUNtlu 7 IdnLL.
In conclusion, we say the defendant
are presumed 10 be innocent unit
their guilt IS proved 10 the satisfac
ton Of the jury beyond reasonabl,
doub;. II. therefore. after CAREFUL,
considering all the evidence you hav,
a reasonable doubt Of Abram =
Frantz, or Howard Il. Franiz. two o
the defendants Or ai-her of .ban, s,,.l
doubt Will enure 10 the benefit o
q both or either as 10 whom you shal
entertain such doubt. and as 10 sucl
defendant or defendants your verde
should be not guilty. But il IS ou
duty 20 instruct you that 10y reason
able Coubt is meant. not a speculativ,
or mere possible doubt. but real sub
stan'.al doubt, and such as REASONABLE
b and fair minded men would feel con
strained 10 entertain after a careful
b and conscientious consideration of al
b the evidence