Mr. Ingersoll. [Interposing.] Very well.
The Court. [Continuing.] Whether the Court is going to allow an argument
to be based upon a mere vacuum--wind, nothing.
Mr. Ingersoll. That would seem to be stealing the foundation of this
case. [Laughter, and cries of "Silence" from the bailiffs.] We will
consider the argument made to the Court, and not to the jury.
The next question, then, is what is the _corpus delicti_; that is, in
a case of conspiracy? I do not believe the combination to be the corpus
delicti--the mere association. It may be the corpus, but it is not the
delicti, and under the law there must not only be a conspiracy, as I
understand it, but also an overt act done by one of the conspirators to
accomplish the object of the conspiracy. So that the conspiracy with the
fraudulent purpose and the overt act constitute the corpus delicti. Now,
I read from Best on Presumptions, page 279:
"The corpus delicti, the body of an offence, is the fact of its actually
having been committed."
The dead body in a murder case is not the corpus delicti. It is the
corpse and nothing more. It must be followed by evidence that murder was
committed.
"The corpus delicti is the body, substance or foundation of the
offence. It is the substantial and fundamental fact of its having been
committed."