|
140
consists entirely, solely, of circumstantial proof. And in many cases
the circumstances relied upon are actually proved by other circum-
stances.
It is undertaken to prove circumstances by circumstantial evidence
itself. And who shall say to what extent the sources of error have
thus multiplied? Owing to this known tendency of circumstantial
evidence to mislead the mind, owing to the danger which is likely to
arise, the law has adopted certain rules, which are to govern and
to guide Juries in considering it. Some of those rules I shall call
your attention to, because I consider them pertinent. There may be
others mentioned hereafter.
The first rule which the law has adopted, for the purpose of guard-
ing, as far as possible, against error-(as for guarding against it
entirely, it cannot be done ; there is no human tribunal where it can
be guarded against ; but to guard against error to some extent, cer-
tain rules of law have been adopted)-the first rule I shall name is
this. It is an established rule of law, that every circumstance which
is relied on must in itself be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I
refer for that to the first of Starkie, 442 page. The first rule is, that
every sin'-le circumstance from which, the conclusion is to be drawn
must be proved in itself beyond all reasonable doubt. That, of course,
shows you that every circumstance is a separate issue, in itself.
Every circumstance is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; and
that, you understand, means this : you must find that it is proved
beyond all reasonable doubt, when all the evidence is in ; not that
any one witness proves a point particularly; but, when you come to
consider all the evidence in the case, introduced by each side, upon
each point, you are to be satisfied of each individual circumstance,
beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore it follows necessarily, that if in a long train of circum-
stances, upon which the case is hung up by the Government, there
is any one single circumstance which fails, there is an end to the
whole case at once. They undertake to anchor their case by a
chain of circumstances. If one link breaks, by its own intrinsic
weakness, or by any force which the opposite party brings against it,
there is an end to the case.
Secondly, Gentlemen, the circumstances which are proved, when
you find they are proved beyond reasonable doubt-those circum-
stances must establish, to a moral certainty, the particular hypothe-
sis attempted to be proved by them. That is to say, if the Govern-
ment undertake to prove a certain fact, by circumstances, and you
are to consider it proved by an inference drawn from those circum-
stances, the circumstances must prove that the inference is correct.
That is to say, not only the circumstances must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, but also you must be satisfied that the inference is
proved beyond all reasonable doubt. And-that is the second circum-
stance. For that rule I will refer to Willis on Circumstantial Evi-
dence, 187 page.
Thirdly, Gentlemen, the circumstances-and I pray your attention
to this rule -these circumstances which are proved beyond reasonable
doubt, must not only support the particular hypothesis which the
Government intend they shall support but they must not support any
other hypothesis. That is to say, they must not only sustain the
|
