Case ID: ny_82/html/0607-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Earl, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Reinhart, Plaintiff in error, v. The People of the State of New York, Defendant in error.
    (Argued September 20, 1880;
    decided September 28, 1880.)
    The plaintiff in error was convicted of the murder of his wife. The principal question on the appeal was as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction; the court held it sufficient.
    It was proved on the part of the prosecution, under objection and exception, that a short time before the alleged murder, the prisoner married .another woman; also evidence was given as to his prior and subsequent relations with her. Held competent as showing a motive. (Pierson v. The People, 79 N. T. 424.)
    Evidence was also given that the prisoner was seen with the woman on the day of said marriage, and that the same woman called at the house where the crime was committed, the next day after it occurred, and left her card. The evidence as to the call and leaving the card were objected to. Held,, untenable ; that so far as the evidence tended to connect the prisoner with the woman it was competent; if it failed to do that, it was harmless.
    The marriage of the prisoner with the deceased was disputed. Held, that evidence as to his calling upon her a short time prior to the alleged marriage was competent.
    The coroner who held the inquest on the body of the deceased, as a witness for the prisoner, was asked if Dr. Walser, a witness sworn at the inquest, had not then testified that “ the cause of death was premature delivery and hemorrhage, and incapacity in the person attending.” The question was objected to and excluded. Held, no error.
    Dr. Walser was subsequently called as a witness for the prisoner and was asked, “ did you find, on the post-mortem examination, that the cause of death was premature delivery and hemorrhage, and violence and incapacity in the personal tending?” This was objected to and excluded as leading. The witness was then asked what he did discover as to the cause of death. He answered, “ that it might have been from various causes; that he did not determine any thing.” Held, that the ruling, as to the first question, was not error.
    
      William F. Howe for plaintiff in error.
    
      Thomas G. Swartwout for defendant in error.
   Earl, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.