Year: 1877

this enlightened and humane view, that the prln'
ciple OF certainty Of the proof of guilt, which |
have mentioned, has obtained, and is yet to be !
applied. he proof must be so certain as to CON |
vince the mind Of the jury, and of every one Of
the jurors, beyond the existence Of every reason
able doubt.
Absolute, mathematical certainty in matters Of
this kind is impossible and ia not and cannot be,
required In judicial proceedings CiviIor criminal.
But human testimony may satisfy or convince
the human mind of the existence of a fact, with
degree of certainty called mOrnl certainty No
greater degree of certainty is required by Grim
inal law, than this degree of moral certainty,
This moral certainty is attained when the proof
convincts the mind Of the fact to be proved, be-
yond the existenee Of all reasonable doubt.
Guilt IL so proven where the proof excludes ev-
cry reasonable hypothesis of nnOeencei where
the facts proven to degree Of certainty beyond
every reasonable doubt, CRnnotbe reconcied with
the hypothesis Of the Innocence of the accused.
AS long as the facts SO proven can be reconciled,
reasonably, with the Innocence OF the accused,
the proof of guilt has not realized that degree of
certainty required by the law to convict Of crime
Probabilities OF guilt, no matter how much great
er than the probabilities of innocence are not
sufficient short Of the degree of certainty re
qured by the rule have mentioned. The guilt
of the accused must be proven so as to convict
the mind Of the jury, and every juror, beyond the
existence Of q reasonable doubt. l


have been thus particular in giving you this
extended eucidaton Of the principles which are
to serve as safe guidance in your deliberations
and in determining the momentous issue of the
guilt or innocence Of the accused because the
court has been requested by both sides to charge
You fully on this subject ..... . f...


Keeping constantly in mind these principles,
and guided by them, you will on retiring to your
room, proceed to canvass, scrutlnize. and weigh
all the facts and circumstances developed by the
proof in the case, with a conscious endeavor to
determine the issue according 10 truth fact, and
law. q


AS the assault and battery Is not In fact con
tested by the accused, your enquiry is necessarily
narrowed down to one main, but all important
question, so far as the charge Of manslaughter is
concerned, It is the question whether the accused
by, or by means Of said assault and battery did
kill and slay the deceased, Matthew Mcclure If
he did q, and If the proof ConvlnCes your minds,
beyond the existence Of q reasonable doubt, that
he did SO kill and slay him. 1t will be your duty
to find him guilty Of the Offense as charged. II
the proof does not 30 convince your minds be.
yond reasonable doubt, that he did not kill and
slay him, 1t will be your duty TO find him not
guilty of manslaughter. To find him guilty the
proof must be such as to convince your minds
beyond the existence Of every reasonable DOUBT
that the death Of The deceased was the direct re-
suit of the assault and battery alleged. If after
carefully considering and weighing all the proof
before you on the subject reasonable doubt
should remain in your minds respecting the i'm
mediate cause Of death, the accused should be
entitled to the benefit Of that doubt, and 1t would
be your duty to find him not guilty of the charge
of mansaughter.


In ordinary cases Of homicide, where 1t is al
legged that deadly weapon was used by the ac-
cuSed, and mortal wound was inflicted upon
the body of the deceased. whereof 1t is averred
he died, no great difficulty is presented to prove
that death directly resulted from the wound in.
fiCted and to prove this to a degree Of moral
certainty, leaving no room for any doubt, Thus
a stab into the heart with dagger, ball fred
into the brain with gun, or q wound inflicted
with any other kind Of dangerous weapons upon
any of the vital organs of the body, in its nature
mortal, where death has actually ensued, il
would not be difficult to prove with moral Ger.
tainty that 1t resulted from the wound. It would
be very easy to do this If post mortem examina.
tion of the corse were made shortly after the
death of the wounded person, by competent sur.
geons, and 1t revealed no other cause Of death
than the wound. Moreover in such cases 1t Is
practicable to call in experienced surgeons, Ia
give their judgments as experts, whether the
wound so inflicted was in its nature mortel, and
whether death resulted from it. Such proof Is
satisfactory and entitled to great weight and may
readily reach that degree of moral certainty
which excludes all reasonable doubt. ., t..


Much greater difficulties are presented in a case
where the wound inflicted ia of character moi
not ordinarily mortal, or where the injury infiiC
ed is comparatively and ostensiyey but triaing
but where death has still, from some cause ac
tually occurred It Is obvious that in such case
the testimony and judgment ofexperts though
admissible and entitled to grave consideration
must be for less able to establish tnat degree o
moral certainty in the minds Of the jury, which
excludes all reasonal doubt. And still CREATE
would the difficulties appear in case where tht
wound inflicted or injury sustained was of char
acter not ordinarily mortal, but rather compare
lively and apparently slight and trihing anC
where the autopsy Ofthe corpse revealed dan
gerous disease, which might have caused thu
death: Whether in sneh case. the testimony O
experts will enable the jury to determine with
that degree Of moral certainty, which exclude
from the mind every reasonable doubt, that tn,
death resulted from such wound or injury, is
problem submitted to the jury which they ma!
or may not abe to solve. They are the soil
judges of the proof, and of the weight and influ
ence to which, in their judgment, it may be en-
titled.


1t is claimed on behalf of the defendant tina
in the case we are trying, all the difficulties men
toned in the last case put, and with still create
difficulties are presented. That the injury in
flicted on the person of the dece ased, withoutan
weapon, simply the hand or fist of the accused
one blow upon the cheek bone. and tussle re
sulting in few scratches, were of a character s
slight and trihing, that death could not be eE
pected to result from the same; weilst the autoT
sy disclosed the tact that the deceased was afIlc


ed with dangerous heart disease far advance
in its progress, from which death might hay
readily resulted independent of these injuries
at any moment This is denied on the part
the State, and it claims that the proof before yor
enables you to determine, beyond any reasOnabl
doubt, that death resulted from the alleged inju
AlSsb MulCu ~ ClhlLnb W uuV6 DGeu OF u more h(
rious and dangerous character especially so, cor
sidering the disease and bodily infGmity unde
which the deceased was labOring'.


1t is for yon gentlemen to determine where tn


truth lies, and what the facts are.


1t is claimed on behalf of the accused that tn
autopsy showed that great and serious diso


ganizatiOn in several parts of the heart of the d


ceased had gone on, disabling it of properly pc


forming its all-mportant functions, threatenir


death at any moment. That among other thinl
the delica ely constructed leaflets or tongues


the valves, one or more Of them necessarily on


rating through which the yet impure and moxl
gonized blood furnished by the digestive and a


similating process going on in other important O


gans of the body, is forced from the right chambC


of the heart, and into the lungs there to reccy


the vivifying supply Of oxygen and throug
which, on the other sides, this thus Vivhcd bloc
+ is forced, with still greater force from the le
chamber of the heart into the great aortic vesst


and through it, sentthroug every part oft the bod
to nourish and viviry it with every pulsation
the heart that these leaflets or tongues in one


more segments, of both these valves had beCOm