762 FEDEEAIi EEPORTBE. �Lewis in carrying out the fraud. Dr. Park says that, on th& contrary, the information was obtained solely to prepare an article on the deceased Lewis for publication, and the reason aasigned for not publishing is that the reporters had antiei- pated him. Inquire how the faets of the interview with the Bensons support these respective contentions. I was some- what impressed with the importance which Dr. Park seemed, by his conduct, to attach to the color of the eyes of one or two of Lewis' old servants. Both Mr. and Mrs. Benson alludeto the anxiety of the doctor on the subject. �The jury will inquire whether that was an important fact in posting Mrs. Lewis as to her duties and responsibilities, or an important fact to disclose to the public in an article in reference to the life and habits of Lewis. You have listened to the comments of the respective counsel, as to his motives in obtaining the information, and it is for you to decide where the truth lies. �The district attorney and the counsel for the defendants have entered so fully into the evidence of the different wit- nesses, showing the corroboration or want of corroboration to be found there, that I do not deem it necessary to pursue the subject further. I will only add, that if the testimony of Mrs. Lewis in regard to Park, taken in connection with his own evidence and the corroboration of other witnesses, do not satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a party to the conspiracy, with a knowledge at any stage of the pro- ceedings of the attempted fraud, it is your duty to acquit him. If, on the other hand, you have no reasonable doubt of the fact, you must not be deterred by any consideration of sym- pathy or meroy from finding him guilty. Your duty is to decide according to the evidence, without regard to the conse- quences. �You will then proceed in the same manner to consider the case of the other defendants. The direct testimony in regard to them is, to a small extent, from Mrs. Lewis, but mainly from Elijah Caldwell. If he epeaks the truth, then, doubtless, Sacia, Allison and Bassford are parties to the fraud. But he also was, in the earlier stages of the proceedings in the state ����
