Year: 1874

acknowledged or witnessed still the instrument


as set oW !" me fyormotioa purports 20 be wit


hessed ana acknowledged. Hence il the prose-
cutor had put IN evidence as a foundation for a
conviction forged mortgage without witnesses


or certificate of acknowledgment. I think


the accused could not properly be convicted


under this information. But an ns yument


has been introduced in evidence corresponding


to the one described in the information. Now


even though the name Of Morris NAV have been
forged to it by the accused prior TO the witness


ing and certifying, still if the Jury sbould find
that subsequent 10 that time and on The 9lst


day OF June last, at the village Of Decatur. at


the request OF the respondent, the ngtu.. All the
witnesses were added and the certificate of


acknowledgment affixed without the knowledge


or consent of Morris, then such act thoucb per.


formed by Foster and Coleman would be leem-


ed as part Of the act Of making the instrument.


and If done at respondents request nav be-


considered, in connection with the forrin'. of


Morris signature, as making and toroinc


of the whole instrument, and as within the


provisions of the statute against the making


and forging Of a false and forged deed.


l have been requested to advise you that if
you lind "that the first use that Matteson made


of the mortgage was on sending it TO Cassopolic


to be recorded. then even if forged, the crime


would be complete only in Cass county and This


j
and the Jury should acquit the prisoner."-


This cannot, think, be the law. The crime
is complete when the instrum ent is completed


for the purpose of injpring or defraudng. The
sending for record or 9th erwise utteripg the in
strument would be bat the means for accom-
plishing the injury intended by the forgery. and
would be no part Of the forgery itself. Upon
this point | recognize the law as applicable to
this case TO be, that if the Jury find from the
evidence that the mortgage in question is a
forgery, and that IL was found in possession of
the defendant, and that he claimed Under it,
such possession ana claim may be considered as
evidence tending 10 show that lie forged il or
caused it to be forged.


If you find that the respondent sent the
mortgage in question for record. this is evidence
tending to show, in connection with tne fact
mat ms name appears as mortgage in the
instrument, that he claimed under t. l-pon
this point further advise you that if YOU
should find that on the day it bears date, nc
was resident Of Decatur, in this county, and
that he was at that place through that entire
day or until the evening Of that day, these facts
would be evidence tending to show mat the
forgery, if committed, was committed u this
county.


The question 10 be- determined in thi. ease is.
not whether Morris actually had all or any part
of the sum of money the payment of which, tn
mortgage purpOrts TO secure, nor whether there
was or was net included therein q sum for
usurlous interest; nor whether MOrri. used r
had occasion 70 use 50 large a sum or sums of
money as it is claimed he borrowed Oh Matte
son.


If the mortgage is valid. if it is the genuine
mortgage Of Amos Morris, it is wholly imlna-
terial in the trial of this issue, whether he
received any present consideration therefor or
whether it was given 70 liquidate some prior



| have said to you that the burden %. proof
was upon the People TO establish the guilt of
the accused. 1t is not incumbent on the ,,efen-
dant 10 prove that Amos Morris was in .ircum-
stances which made il necessary i3r him 10
borrow money nor does it devolve upon him
to prove what consideration Morris received tor
tie mortgage in question, The ultimate ques-
tion, the real issue, is, whether in fact Niateson
forged the mortgage.


These other questions in relation .Y which
evidence has been produced, are only r,ateriaI
as they may tend TO throw some light up0n the
main question.


The defendant not only denies having forged
the mortgage in question, but insists that it is
the genuine mortgage Of Amos Morris executed
at Decatur in this county at the time * pur.
ports to have been. On the other hand. the
q.
insists that on the 2lst Of June, tne lay ON
which the instrument bears date, Merris was
not In Decatur, and numerous witnesses have
been introduced on both sides in relation To
this question. This absence from Decatur is
an alleged fact in support Of the prosecutors
case. In relation to this as in relation 70 all
other alleged facts upon which the Pe3ulc RELY
as tending to prove the guilt Of the accused. it
must be established to the satisfaction ~ the
jury beyond reasonable doubt. F-om this
you will perceive that if you have any reas, IA
bic doubt whether Amos Norris was in Decatur
on June 2lst, 1873, or not, you will aot be at
liberty to say he was not there. The D., under
consideration may be thus stated: Each of
the facts and circumstances relied upon bv the
prosecution and mGteIial to q convict on must
be proved and established with the samo degree
Of certainty with which the guilt of the respon-
dent is required TO be established, aad uo fact
DR. circumstance alleged by the prosec lion is to
be considered at all by the Jury. in determin-
ng the question of guilt or innoeen e, unless
he truth of said fact or circumstance Is fslly
established by credible evidence to -oe entire
satisfaction OF the Jury. and beyond e. reasona-
Die doubt; and when any such facJ estab-
ished, TO render it of any value in establishing
guilt, it must be such fac, a is consistent
With the guilt of the defendant and inc0usIs-
ent with his innocence.


TO warrant you in finding verdict OF
guilty, you must find that the theory Of the
,uilt of the prisoner flows naturally rom the
acts proved, and from all of the faets; and
must be consistent with all such facts and if
7ou find any one Of the established "a % TO be
Inconsistent with the guilt of the prisoner, then
{ is your duty TO acquit him, although al the
ther facts may be consistent with AMI oo,nt to
liz guilt"


s'To Justify a conviction of the ro.pyndenl,
[ is not sufficient that there is q prop onderance
# evidence in favor Of guilt, even although
uch prepon ierance should be so greas a. to
reate. in the opinion Of the jury, % strong
of guilt. The guilt of tho respon-
ent must be proved to moral certa nty, and
o the exclusion of all reasonable dolb;s."


''The guilt or innocence Of the prisoner is
ot to be determined upon q mere p-eponder-
nee of the proof This is rule in 'iyil eau
es, but in this case the prisoner mus. ne ac-
uittcd unless the evidence removes every
doubt of his guilt from tho minds Of
nc jury and in cases OF doubt il H. safer To
cquit than convict"


lt has been said that the ease with which am
ii6i may be got up and maintained, Tonders it
very suspicious kind Of proof This is true
et when established 10y reputable witnesses,
no satisfy the jury that they are not mista-
en-, it is usually very conclusive, for it pre-
udes the possibility of the person in whose
half it is invoked, having been at the place
here it is claimed he was by the party ques-