Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-02-21
From the Piaua tohIol Register.

"NNN N = - C -
ceived the charge of the Judge, retired to
their room between five and six o'clock in the
evening. and at twelve o'clock the sam night
returned into Court with a verdict of "Not
Guilty"
Arthur Riggen died here in April last IN
der circumstances clearly indicating to his
medical attendants the effects of poison.
The fact having transpired that Mrs. Rlggen
had a few days before procured arsenic from
one of the drug-stores at once aroused the sus-
picion in the public mind that she had al
ministered the fatal drug to her husband. A
p0St-mortem examination was made Of the de-
ceased, which so far corroborlted the prcyi-
Gus opinion of the physicians, that the stom-
ach, or its contents, were taken to athOrough
practical chemist Or. WOrmsley, of Column
bus,O to be analysed. This analysis, made
with great care by DIR. BrOwnell, OF this city,
(who hal been the attending physician and
Prof. Wormsley, showed a large quantity of
arsenic in the stomach, and settled all doubts
rs to the immediate cause Of the death of
Riggen.
In the meantime Mrs. Riggen had been ar
rested aud held for examination. About the
same time some matters came to lighttending
to connect 4 man named James Mowry with
Mrs. Riggen in the foul deed, and he was also
arrested. At the examination before Esquire
SAGE, Mrs. Riggen made a full confession of
the whole affair, admitting her own guilt and
fully duplicating Mowry. In her testimony
on that occasion, she gave n detailed, concise
and intensely interesting history of her ac-
quaintance with Mowry. and all the cirum-
stances leading to and connected with the
death Of her husband. The result was that
both she and Mowry were fully committed
for trial.
A few days after their cOmmittal Mowry's
counsel had him brought before the Probate
Judge with a view of getting him released or
bail. Mrs. r. was again placed upon the wit
ness-stand and again gave a minute detail Of
all the circumstances of the case. Here she
was subjected to the severest ordeal Of cross
examination through which any witness ever
passed in a court in this conntry-extending
through some two or three days. But every
effort of learned counsel to tangle the web of
her testimony utterly failed, and the investi-
CATION closed with the firm conviction on al
most every mind that she had told the truth,
and nothing but the truth. The motion to
admit to bail was, therefore o%veruled by the
court, and Mowry remanded to prison to
await the action of the next grand jury; but
as there was but little evidence against him
except that of Mrs. r., (who was not. of
course, permitted to appear before that body
whose duty it was to investigate the charge
against her as we'll as that against Mowry,) no
bill was found against him, and he was dis
charged; the jury was also very near finding
a bill against Mrs. r., and, but for the fact
that some of the members had heard her con-
~fession, would not. Upon this knowledge,
however an Indictment was found. At the
October term Of the court she was not in a
condition to be tried-having but a few weeks
before given birth to an infant. A special
term was thereforc ordered by Judge Hart,
to open on the 9th of January, as above stated,
at which to try her.
The first week and a part Of the second
were spent in im%pannelling a jury. So diff
cult a thing was this found that one time it
was believed the cause would have to be re-
moved to another county. But at length one
was procured with which both parties were,
we believe, satisfied. The prisoner was ar
raigned and pleaded not guilty. As her con-
feSsions in her testimony against Mowry, in
both the Probate and Justices Court, were
made under an agreement that they should
not he used against her thereafter, the trial
had to be conducted Just as if no confession
had ever been made. A large number of
witnesses were introduced by both the pros
ecution and defense, but we cannot even
glance at what was testified to by them.
Suffice it to say, that the State proved ny
them that Riggen died of poison, (arsenic;)
that Mrs. Il. had purchased the article a short
time before in Tippecance, and had also pro-
cured an additional quantity q day or two be-
fore he died at one of the drug stores here,
with a long train of minor circumstances
strongly tending to fix the guilt upon her !;
making, altogether, in the minds of many, a
strong, clear and unbroken chain OF circum-
%stantial evidence. On the other hand, the
defense proved for the prisoner a good char
acter up to the time of her husbands death /;
they also endeayored to show, by several
witnesses and a variety Of circumstances, a
strong probability that the deceased had ia
ken the poison himself. In this last, we think
their efforts were not lost, for TIE showing
made was quite sufficient to create doubts, at
least, in the minds of almost every one who
was not aware that the prisoner had confessed
the deed and detailed all the particulars.
After nearly two weeks labor in eXamin-
ing and c-ross-examining witnesses, in which
the counsel (Messrs. Jones and Parsons for
the State, and Mckinney, Hart and COrwin
for the prisoner) authorized every word, and
resisted, alternately, every sentence which
was likely to 'telP against their respective
sides and after two days of able and inge-
Nous argument the case was given to the
jury, with the result stated in the first para
graph of this article.
The result of this trial has surprised some.
but a large majority of those who gave atten-
ton to 1t during its progress anticipated the
verdict of the jury. Without pretending to
know what influenced the minds of the iury.
we may be allowed to guess ut a few things
which may have had some bearing in this
case Here was a young woman with an in
FAINT three or four months old, charged with
n crime of which, should she be convicted.
the penalty is death upon the gallows: if
guilty Of the crime she was not alone in il ::
her suspected accomplice had been set at lib
erty the testimony is all circumstantial.
with some room of doubt. The first of these
would very naturally create sympathy for the
prisoner, and the doub would afford a way
for the practical exercise of that sympathy.
The verdict in this case, although outrag-
ing the principles of justice and shocking the
moral sense of community when viewed by
the light thrown upon it by the prisoner her
self, in her public and circumstantial confes-
sion, has, nevertheless. created surprise in the
minds of but few. Nine-tenths, at least, of
those familiar with it believe that the woman
was not the instigator of the crime. True,
she was the agent by whom it was accom-
plished, but there was n serpent behind the
screen who coiled about her, willy and insin-
uating, like that of Eden, when it approached
our first mother, and
AssayiBg, by his desiiish art To reach
The organs Of her fancy, and with them forge
Illusions, as he list, phantoms and dreams;
Or u, inspiring venom. he might taiut
tn animal spirits, that from pure blood arise.
Like gentle breaths from rivers pure; thence raise
At least distempered, disconnected thoughts:
Vain hopes, vain aims, i%nOrdinate desires.
Blown up ~withhigh eoneeit's engendering pride.-
The "serpent" in this case had escaped
punishment, and few desired to see his vic.
tim expiate her agency in the tragic affair
alone upon the gallows. SO prevalent was
this feeling in community that, although all