The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-25
Supreme Court.>f;en-rai Ter


MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN THE CASE OF WILLIAMS,
CONVICTED OF roIsoNISG HIS WIFE.
TEB. 237he People Is. Anireio WHliams.-Me,srs.
Spencer and Clinton submitted the following points for
the prisose and argued tina. hs entitled to new
trial.
The Court erred in admitting In evidence the decla
raons OF the deceased as stated By Mary Campbell at
tol. Is, as foows:-"The last Saturday before hsr
oeath she left house with clothing for her husband
(who was a watchman on some ship In the North
riyer). az she said: sse did not ret IRA until 6ve
O'Clock the next morning; when she came Ia she ap.
peared very Ill; she said she got sick board the
been drinking she said that her whole frame
IL were on fire. and her heart felt awful This
swer was elected by the District Attorney asking thu
witness 10 state where the deceased said she going
ON the saturday evening previous to her death and
taken under DEFENDANTS objection and pton. The
Court also erred in charging hat the jury ght
that the deceased with her hus nd on the stur
cay hight preceding her deatno TINS Inference re.te
solely these de aratons OF the the
absence OF the prisoner The testimony hear
say, and was clearly inadmissibe 10 the case OF
kuby "; The State, serg., Ss3, It was he'd
to the place where he found murder,3 and the
Gay before hs supposed to bs killed it'd tina
he was going TO that place and that the defendant
going with him, incompetent. Ia Zeiier vs. the
State e Halst 200 II held that rsaticu OF
the deceased with third person Of the
which never to the knowledge of the prisoner
not be received in evidence The priLcioe these
10 too clear and well established to require citation of
further authorities There was no Dr4tence that
statements OF the de :eAsed dying declaration
If they had been offered such they would have been
clearly inadmissble- because they not made in
dTftcuio rnor's or under the ciousness Of pend
ing dissolution. On the contrary the deceased during
the time these declarations made aod after Yards
recovery When her husband left her on Wednesday
evening" she stated (fo 49, that ION Friday she would
be .ois 70 e p ssr E Sss ns1ey s9''0' Grim Ev
q The testimony OF DR.. Uhl, Is to the condition and
contents Of the bowl taken ubd.r exceptions and the
analysis Of this contents Of the bowl BY Professor
under A Il
mtted: because they were not sufficiently identified.
And the Court erred in refusing to charge Tnst II the
bowl was exposed on . table chest room or
elsewhere. where Macy persons hal bet the
time il taken from the the and the
chemical analysis by Professor McCrady the evidence
to the analysis 81 contents Of the bowl should DO
rejected" The Witness Mrs. Campbell states that the
day, and she could not how long remaioed thsrs
There half dozen people In the break
and the court ntmates its opinion that she could not
essentially identity IL.
.. The tour erred in receiving evidence the recog
nizance without due proof Of its execution.
Mr. A. Oakley Hall District Attorney, opposed the mo.
ton and submitted the folio wing points the part of
the people
Point l. Tie Court correc ia admitting the .esti
mopy excepted TO, and which testimony is found aud
TACT that he sss made aud not Il. tats or
ialsity, was in question II accompanied act and
was expressive of the character, motive obje;t-
being thus, verbal act indicating present purpose
and intention AN exception to the rule 10 hearsay.
II Green l09 and 100 The declaration vas srward
confirmed by husba nd q admissions
Point 2 The Court 10 admitting the tes-
timony concerning the bowl and a contents. The testl.
mony was competent and admissible 70 the jury who
could give to II what effect they chose The bowl was
traced from the prisoner Evidence of Mrs Campbell who
gave Il TO officer flanagan, OF Officer flanagan who
gave Il to Lieutenant Bingham Of lie ltena ut
Bingham, who gave II TO the coroner OF the
coroner, who gaze 1t TO Dr. Uhl who, with
DR.. McCresdy, made snsly Of lis contents
Whether tie bowl from which the medical Gentlemen
made the tests for poison, the bowl OF which
the prisoner led the deceased was competent ami pro
per testimony for the jury in connection with the test
OF lis contents ing with test Of the poison
found on post morten The jury by their verdict set
ted the matter.
Point 3. The Court properly allowed the boni to be
read IN evidence II was called for by objection ~
the prisoner. II came before the jury not record,
but as private writing n you please, II IL
private bond OF the party, whose reca bound him IL
sgnsd by the prisoner and had Teen acted upon by
him before The witness George kellogg who confront.
cd b m Its recitsls we're nothing than thu evi
dence Of Mr. Kellogg sho wed to be the fact Kellogg wa
Almshouse superintendent he had control Of these
bonds by statute the bond rccited that the prisoner
bad been convicted Of abondon Dg hi, wife Kellogg
tined Ia this and the prisoner acts showed H. prso.
per was, Therefore not peiudced the reading Of the
bond. Had tho tond been received without the eyen
OF kellogg the prisoner night rot have been bouni BY
its rectas The fact that there bal been difficulty OF
sny hiLS between prisoner and deceased vas
for the jury IN respect TO motive
The decision IL Nhe court Is re ervtd.