Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1858-02-27

yet tue prisoner WAS uiHoss wv o"'J
unmoved. In bis speech, Clark reflects upon
the Court and Jury, but without one particle
Of truth or justice. We give below the
greater portion Of the Judges charge, aud
also the sentence Of the court, in which the
main features Of the whole case are set out
TO enable you 10 6stermne the arst in
quiry, you have the testimony OF Doctor
Simington, who attended her during part OF
her illness, and until he informed her he
GUILD do no more for her, aud his testimony,
and the testimony OF Doctors Strawbridge,
Magiil, Frick and Snitzler.
Tho appearance Of Mrs. Clark after her
death has been detailed to you, and Dr. ST.
mington has related her appearance when he
first visited her. He found her skin hot
her pulse small and frequent, some dizziness
in ber head, eyes swollen and rather red.
| This was about the fret of May. She CON-
planned Of pains in her stomach and breast,
| with somo tenderness in these parts-her
stomach somewhat swollen, great heat in her
throat, which she said was burning, and in.
cessant thirst, md tho attendants Mrs.
| Twiggs and the prisoner said she vomited q
great deal, and had diarrhGa. that she was
restless and nervous. and had some twitchngs
at times he administered such remedies MS
| he supposed would check tho diarrhcca and
vomiting, but without success. The Doctor
| states that her symptoms correspond almost
! exactly with tho symptoms given iI the books
| as belonging to poison by arsenic. All the
physicians who were examined as to whether,
| from appearances. after death, it could be
determined whether death resulted from the
| administration of arsenic say i: could not.
The Commonwealth charge, that William
John Clark, the prisoner at the bar, and the
husband Of Catharine Ann Clark, is the guilty
person. This you must determine from all
the evidence in the Court--it is your peculiar
province to do so. Is the prisoner at the
bar guty2 We are startled at the question,
and our feelings are SO much at variance
with such supposition, that We, for mo-
ment, are disposed to answer, no. The tender
relations OF man and wifs-the close connec.
tion between them--the solemn pledges made
at the marriage altar, Of love, protection,
| support. comfort in sickness and in health 10
prosperity and adversely, ell crowd upon
the mind, and forbid such an unnatural con-
clusion. But all these may be broken, and
evil passions may gain such an ascendency in
the heart as TO overleap md break down,
| every barrier in tho way Of accomplishing
the fatal deed.
If the prisoner OF the bar is guilty Of this
foul act, what was his motive The motive
| Tor the commission OF q crime cannot always
bo nscertained and proved. If the Common
wealth fail to prove motive, it does not
| follow from that circumstance alone, that
the prisoner is not guilty. When crime is
committed, there is no doubt O motive for
the commission OF it. The motive may ex-
| st in the mind, and manifest itself, by any
oatward act, capable Of proof. In this case
no criminal connexion is shown between the
Daft. aud Mrs. Twiggs-no very improper
familiarity, prior to the death of Mrs. Clark.
They were seen seated close to each other
he having his arm around her, ut one time,
while it appears they were engaged in read
ing the Bible and the prisoner occasionally
visited Mrs. Twiggs at her house, after night
in absence of her husband, and when be Was
at home. Mr. Twiggs visited Clark-they
appear TO have been friends, working in the
same mill. The father of Mrs. Twiggs, old
MIR. McClintock, was always at home at night,
and when Clark was there. Nothing crimi-
nal however is proved between them, but o
familiarity Of which we may not approve
! The Commonwealth, from these acts of fa-
miliarity, would have yeu INFER that q passion
existed between MIS-. Twiggs and the prison.
er, and that this passion for Mrs. Twiggs
caused hin, to take tho life Of his wife. If
! the prisoner did commit the foul act charged
| against him, it will be your duty to fud q
motive for it, if you can, from the evidence in
the cause, there is no direct proof Of the
prisoners guilt-no direct evidence that the
prisoner administered poison to his wife -
| This is not necessary TO justify o conviction
even for so high an offence as that OF murder.
The law does not require direct, express and
positive proof Of guilt, but it does require
such proof as fixes guilt upon the accused
| beyond all reasonable doubt, actual, substan-
tial doubt.
What are the material facts and circum.
stance relied upon by the Commonwealth to
fix the murder OF Mrs. Clark, upon hel
husband2
Mrs. Clark left home. to visit some friends
in the city OF Philadelphia, about March last
She remained from home for several weeks
During her absence David Twggs, the hus
band Of Mrs. Twiggs, died. There is evi
dence that while she was in Philadelphia
perhaps the night before, she was sick
complained Of 0 pain in her bowels, and vom
tied, and appeared weak and exhausted tha
morning before leaving the city-and vomi
ted while in the cars, on her return home
Some OF her neighbors saw her the day sht
returned, and states that she appeared well
1 Ie ueAl ua9 SuS was very sICh-OT ING udl
after thGt.-One Of the witnesses Mrs. Nc
Mullen states that when she first saw her
she was in bed-appeared as if she was
getting out Of q it-sa;d she had taken mo g
ncsia-complained of her stomach-aad sait
if she could vomit, she would get better
Mrs. Twiggs and the husband OF Mrs. Clarl
appeared from the testimony TO have beef
her attendants. principally, during her illness
Dr. Simngton visited her first, about the Is
OF May, and saw her during her illness som,
4 or times. He found her in the condition
already described by the Court.
1t is alleged by the Commonwealth, tha
poison administered was mingled with mag
nesia and water. She took magnesia q
stated, and the Doctor saw in the hands C
Mrs. Twiggs paper containing magnesia o
he believed He prescribed such remedie
as he thought would control the disease unde
which he supposed she was laborng, bu
without producing the desired effect, an,
she fingered until the following Saturday
,aeheE she ceased 10 eGtst. Doctor Simingto
wrote prescription-he did not administe
them himself, but be states that in the hear
ing Of Mrs. Clark it was stated they wer
administered to her, which statement shc di
not deny. 1t is in evidence by Curtis Her
ington, who was iu the drug store OF Chalian
! Hughes, that he sold to the prisoner th
last week in March 1857 an ounce OF arseni
about lst week in April another ounc,
which Clark stated he got to kill rats. Ill
L. a La i. Al. L