e, and if the jury have reasonable doubt as to
any material fact, necessary to be proved in order to support the
hypothesis of the prisoner's guilt, to the exclusion of every other
reasonable hypothesis, they must find her not guilty.

"'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