State v. . Summey

The counsel for the defendant, on the trial below, put the case on two grounds, both of which were presented by the evidence:

1. That he was not guilty, "because he did not actually participate in the stilling."

2. Because "there was no distillation."

His Honor does not respond to either position, directly, but charged, in general terms, that "if the jury believed the evidence, the defendant was guilty."

From this mode of putting the case to the jury there is no telling whether they found the defendant guilty upon the testimony of the first witness or of the second, or of both; for, although both…