“’IV.—­If the jury are satisfied from the evidence, that the accused is guilty of the offence charged, beyond reasonable doubt, and no rational hypothesis or explanation can be framed or given (upon the whole evidence in the cause) consistent with the innocence of the accused, and at the same time consistent with the facts proved, they ought to find her guilty.  The jury are the exclusive judges of the evidence, of its weight, and of the credibility of the witnesses.  It is their duty to accept and be governed by the law, as given by the Court in its instructions.’

“The evidence in this case is not direct and positive, but presumptive; and your attention has been called to some well known cases of persons convicted of, and executed for capital crimes, whose entire innocence was subsequently made apparent.  These arguments and cases only prove that, ’all human evidence, whether it be positive or presumptive in its character, like everything else that partakes of mortality, is fallible.  The reason may be as completely convinced by circumstantial—­as by positive evidence, and yet may possibly not arrive at the truth by either.’

“The true question, therefore, for your consideration, is not the kind of evidence in this case, but it is, what is the result of it in your minds?  If it has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused, and your minds are not convinced, vacillate in doubt, then you must acquit her, be the evidence what it may, positive or presumptive; but if the result of the whole evidence satisfies you, it you are convinced that she is guilty, then it is imperatively your duty to convict her, even if the character of the evidence be wholly circumstantial.”  Such is the law.

“In resigning this case to you, I deem it my duty to direct your attention to one point, which I suggest that you consider.  If the accused administered chloroform, did it indicate that her original intention was solely to rob the vault?  Is the act of administering the chloroform consistent with the theory of deliberate and premeditated murder?  In examining the facts submitted by counsel, take the suggestion just presented, with you, and if the facts and circumstances proved against her, can be accounted for on the theory of intended, deliberate robbery, without necessarily involving premeditated murder, it is your privilege to put that merciful construction upon them.

“Gentlemen of the jury, I commit this mournful and terrible case to your decision; and solemnly adjure you to be governed in your deliberations, by the evidence as you understand it, by the law as furnished in these instructions, and to render such verdict, as your reason compels, as your matured judgment demands, and your conscience unhesitatingly approves and sanctions.  May God direct and control your decision.”

CHAPTER XX.