its case the state does not have to specifically prove that the defendant taught a theory that denied the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, other than to prove that he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals. Therefore, the court charges you that if you find that the proof in this case shows that the defendant did teach in the public schools of Rhea county, the same being supported in whole or in part by the public school fund, subsequent to the passage of this statute, and prior to the finding of this indictment, that man descended from a lower order of animals, and if these facts are shown beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant would be guilty and should be so found, and you are not concerned as to whether or not this is a theory denying the story of the divine creation of man as taught, for the issues as they have been finally made up in this case do not involve that question.
By the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt," I do not mean any possible doubt that might arise, or such a doubt as an ingenuous mind might conjure up, but by reasonable doubt in legal parlance is meant such a doubt as would prevent your mind resting easy as to the guilt of the defendant.
In determining whether or not his guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt you must weigh and consider the evidence, and in doing that you would look to the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, their opportunities to know the facts concerning which they testify, their respectability or want of respectability if such appears, their interest in the result of the lawsuit or want of interest; their bias, prejudice or leaning to one side or the other, if such appears. Their relationship to any of the parties, and all other facts that might enable you to determine what weight should be given their testimony.
You, gentlemen, are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses, and judges of the law under the direction of the court.
You enter upon this investigation with the presumption that the defendant is not guilty of any offense, and this presumption stands as a witness for him until it is overcome by competent and credible proof.
There are different methods by which witnesses are impeached. One is by showing that they are unworthy of belief, by those who know them best; another method is by showing that a witness has made contradictory statements as to material facts involved in the case, concerning which he gave testimony. Another is to involve the witness in discrepancies upon the witness stand, by rigid and close cross-examination.
When a witness is once impeached, he stands throughout the trial, but this does not mean that he did not swear the truth. This is a matter for you to determine, but the impeaching process is a circumstance which you will take into consideration in determining what weight you will give this testimony.
If there are conflicts in the statements of the different witnesses, it is your duty to reconcile them if you can, for the law presumes that each witness has sworn the truth. But if you cannot reconcile their testimony, the law makes you the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.
In this case the defendant did not go on the stand. Under our construction and laws he has the right to either testify or not to testify as he sees proper, and his failure to testify creates no presumption of his guilt, but should be considered for no purpose in determining whether or not he is guilty.
Under the provision of the statute in this case, a person who violates the same may be punished by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500. If after a fair and honest investigation of all the facts you find the defendant guilty and find that his offense deserves a greater punishment than a fine of $100, then you must impose a fine not to ex-
