Reading Time: 3 minutes [370 words]

EDWARD D. WORRELL. 117

are almost invariably committed under circumstances of se-
erecy. The murderer abides his time and goes forth in the
dark hours of the night to do his bloody work. Conscious
that no eye is upon him but the Almighty’s, he strikes the
fatal blow, and under the cover of darkness makes his escape.
If he cannot be made to suffer the penalty of the law except
upon the testimony of an eye-witness, the sooner your penal
code is abolished the better, for then man will look to himself
alone for protection and provide means accordingly.

But, gentlemen, we are not confined in this case to eireum-
stantial evidence. The declarations of the prisoner to Couzins
and Wentz at Smyrna, and to Sturgeon and Taylor in the
St. Louis jail, establish his participation in the homicide,
bat I shall reserve my comments upon these confessions for
another branch of the ease. But Major Wright says that the
State has failed to prove that the prisoner inflicted the wound
which resulted in the death of Gordon. If he means by this
that the State hes not produced a witness who saw the trans-
action, then he is correct; but if he means that the State haa
produced no evidence tending to show that Worrell did in-
flict the wound, then we differ widely in opinion. The evi-
dence disclosed the fact that Worrell was the leading man of
the two; that he had a pistol in his possession eapable of pro-
dueing such a wound as was found on Gordon’s head; that
he loaded the pistol at Hutchinson’s; that he was afterwards
found in possession of Gordon’s horse, watch, saddle, saddle-
bags, bridle and daguerrotype case, and that he told Mr. Stur-
geon and Mr. Taylor that Gordon did not suffer after he was
shot. These and other facts in the case leave no doubt as to
who was the prime instigator of the act. But for the purposes
of this prosecution it is wholly immaterial whether Worrell
or Broff inflicted the wound.

The first count in the indictment charges that Worrell did
it, and that Bruff was present aiding and abetting. The
seeond count charges that Braff did it, and that Worrell
was present aiding and abetting. That they were both en-
gaged in the transaction is clearly shown by the testimony,
and it is a well-settled principle f law ‘‘that ‘f two or more

Related Posts