
    State vs. Horace McDonald, appellant.
    Sagadahoc,
    1875.
    May 4, 1876.
    
      Trial — how instructions should be given•
    Wliere a requested instruction, embracing, as an abstract proposition, correct law, was refused by tbe court; held, not to be error, if the law was given by the court with sufficient fullness to guide the jury to a correct result.
    The court instructed the jury that the burden was upon the government to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; and that, unless his guilt was thus established, it was their duty to acquit; and was requested to further instruct them that, “if from the evidence there was any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused, they must acquit him,” which requested instruction was refused. Held, that the requested instruction, adding nothing to the force of that already given, was rightfully withheld.
    On exceptions.
    Complaint, for search and seizure.
    The presiding justice, at the trial, having instructed the jury, in substance, that it was the duty of the state to satisfy their minds, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the accused, and that unless his guilt was thus established, it was their duty to acquit him, the counsel for the defendant requested the further instruction, that, “if from the evidence there was any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused, it would be their duty to acquit him.”
    
      This request was refused, and the defendant, the verdict being guilty, alleged exceptions.
    
      J. D. Simmons, for the defendant.
    
      W. T. Hall, county attorney, for the state.
   Walton, J.

The refusal of the presiding judge to instruct the jury that “if from the evidence there was any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused they must .acquit him,” was not erroneous. The presiding judge had already instructed the jury that the burden of proof was upon the government to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; and that, unless his guilt was thus established, it was their duty to acquit him.

Nothing further was necessary. Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55. The requested instruction, if given, would have added nothing to the force of the instructions already given, while its peculiar and somewhat obscure form might have confused and misled the jury. We think it was rightfully withheld.

Exceptions overruled.

Judgment on the verdict.

Appleton, C. J., Dickerson, Barrows, Daneorth and Llbbey, JJ., concurred.  