Leon Reporter, Leon, Iowa
Thursday, May l, l902

'Ira Hammond on Trial at Mt. Ayr for the Murder of Miss Maude Stone.'

In regard to the first essential, to-wit:

The state must show that the defendant, at the time and place charged in the indictment, administered to the said MAUDE STONE some drug, or drugs, or aided and abetted therein, or used a certain instrument, or instruments, or aided and abetted therein, upon the person of the said MAUDE STONE, or both administered such drugs and used such instruments, or aided and abetted therein.

If this is sustained by the evidence, then, as to this element, you would be justified in finding for the state. If not sustained, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Regarding the second requisite, to-wit:

The pregnancy of MAUDE STONE, you are instructed:
It must be shown that at the time when such drugs were administered, or instruments used, if you find they were administered or used, the said MAUDE STONE was a pregnant woman. Pregnancy means with child; and a woman is pregnant, within the meaning of the law, from the period of conception until delivery. If it appear that at the time when such drugs were administered, or instruments used, if you find they were administered or used, the said MAUDE STONE was a pregnant woman, within the definition given, then, on this issue, you would be justified in finding for the state.

If, however, you do not so find, your verdict should be for the defendant. It would not be sufficient for it to appear that the said MAUDE STONE had at some time been pregnant. It must appear that at the time complained of the said MAUDE STONE was pregnant. It would not be sufficient if it be shown that the said MAUDE STONE thought she was pregnant; it must appear so in fact.

In regard to the third requisite, to-wit:

The intent, you are instructed: It must appear that the said drugs were administered, or instruments used, during the pregnancy of the said MAUDE STONE wilfully and with the intent on the part of the person who committed the act charged to then and there and by those means to procure, or cause an abortion, or miscarriage of the said MAUDE STONE. An abortion, or miscarriage, as it is termed in the indictment, is the act of miscarrying, or producing offspring before the natural period of gestation, or normal delivery and birth. By wilfully is meant intentionally, purposely, and the wilful intent necessary is that the person charged administered such drugs, or used such instruments, or both, with the design and purpose on the part of said person then and there and by such means to produce or cause an abortion, or miscarriage, as herein defined, of the said MAUDE STONE. It must also be shown, as to one who is charged with aiding or abetting the commission of such act, that he joined in said intent, and wilfully and with said intent aided and abetted said acts. If you find such wilful intent shown by the evidence, you would be justified on this issue in finding for the state. But if you do not so find, your verdict should be for the defendant.

It must also be shown, as a fourth requisite, that such miscarriage was not necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE. It will be necessary for the state to show, not only the acts charged as constituting the offense, and that said acts were done with the intent to produce a miscarriage, or abortion, but, also, that such miscarriage, or abortion, if shown, was not necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE. The law takes into consideration the fact, generally admitted, that under certain circumstances, justified in causing a miscarriage or abortion, and even if such act result in the death of the woman, they do not constitute any crime. It is necessary, before a conviction can be warranted for the crime herein charged that such conditions shall be negatived by the state, and the state must establish that a miscarriage, if one is shown, was not necessary to save the life of the said MAUDE STONE. If the state has so proven, then, on this issue, you would be justified in so finding. If not established, you should find the defendant not guilty.

Regarding the fifth requisite, to-wit:

That the death of the said MAUDE STONE was caused thereby, you are instructed: It must appear that the acts before referred to caused the death of the said MAUDE STONE. If her death resulted from any other cause whatever, the defendant cannot be convicted. If the death of the said MAUDE STONE was occasioned by any other cause than that charged, the state is not entitled to a verdict of guilty.

Under our law the distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal is abrogated, and all persons connected in the commission of a public offense, or aid and abet its commission, though not present, are alike guilty as principals.

In the case at bar it is not claimed by the state that the defendant, IRA HAMMOND, committed the acts charged as constituting the offense, but it is claimed that he aided and abetted in their commission. If you find that one J.W. CROFFORD committed the acts which constitute the crime charged, and that defendant, IRA HAMMOND, aided and abetted in their commission, he is guilty. Even if not personally present when said acts were committed, if he advised, counselled, arranged for, or did any act which in any way assisted in bringing about said acts, he is guilty. If he was present and encouraged, or counselled, or in any way aided or assisted in the commission of such acts, he would be guilty.

Mere knowledge on the defendant's part that such acts were contemplated or intended, or were in fact committed, would not be sufficient. Even personal presence, without advice, counsel, encouragement, aid or assistance would not make the defendant responsible.

Evidence has been permitted to be introduced on the part of the state with reference to another abortion which the state claims was performed upon the said MAUDE STONE in August, l900, and in the commission of which it is claimed the defendant aided and abetted.

The jury are instructed that such evidence was permitted to be introduced as bearing upon the question of the motive intent, or necessity of the acts of the parties with relation to the particular offense charged, which it is claimed occurred in January, l90l. It would be improper for you to consider or give weight to such evidence for any other purpose. The defendant could not be convicted of the crime herein charged by showing he had aided and abetted in the commission of a like offense in August, l900, even if you should find such fact. The crime charged and for which the defendant is on trial was the one alleged to have been committed in January, l90l, and if such crime was not committed in January, l90l, or if committed, if the defendant did not aid and abet in its commission, he is entitled to an acquittal, whatever occurred in August, l900.

To Be Continued . . ."further instructions to the jury. ."

Copied by Nancee(McMurtrey)Seifert,br> "With permission from the Leon Journal Reporter"
December 2l, 2002