The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-07
The GambIe Case.

| woman said who came 10 lay nef out, VINO
must be regarded as an expert for such cases,
and who examined the body at the request of
the husband to try if she could feel the heart
hLs... There was evidently a desire not to
bury the woman until her heai.. had ceased its
nnlsations-the only trace of humanity IL the
husband that the evidence reveals. Nobody,
therefore, had authoritatively pronounced the
wife dead before the old woman was called to
prepare her for burial. Even the husband was
not sure that ife was extinct, and If we inquire
why in such circumstances he sent for some
one to lay the body out we can only 60 into
his thoughts, conjecturing that he had some
reason to suppose that If his wife was not dead
she ought to be. No doctor looked on at the
last hour, specializing possible remedies No
sympathizing friend sat by the bedside to catch
the last word, and no relative-though the
woman had many-was present. Only the
husband and faithful Mrs. Hujus were there.
What were the relations of the husband and
wife, and who was Mrs. Hujus? Mrs. Gam
BILE had inherited a large property from for
mer husband, and Mr.. Gamble appears to have
been without any. so that it was no doubt said
very early in the history Of their union that he
married her for her money. They had q "cat
and dog life" Mr.. Gamble threw his wife In and
out of rooms and off sofas and beds without
any fear that he might hurt her, and threw her
baby 1.-TWO months old) to the floor with such
violence that Sister of Charity present
thought he had killed it. And towards women
who seem to have had rather superior personal
charms to Mrs. Gamble he observed quite q
different style. Mrs. Hujus was the woman
from whom they bought the place in the coun-
try. They went into the country on account
| OF Mrs. CANDLES health, as to which, OF
course, her husband was solicitous. Why they
went to Rockland county rather than anywhere
else does not appear In the testimony; nor
does 1t appear whether the husband and Mrs.
Hujus had any acquaintance previous to the
purchase of the farm. But when they were
once together they got on very well-so well
that though Mrs. Hujus had sold the farm to
Mrs. Gamble she did not 60 away; 80 well
that when some one, referring to her position,
spoke of her as ''the woman" (meaning the
housekeeper, apparently she said she was
''not the woman, but the head" Nay, they
got on so well together that one of the wit
nesses details very infinitely the facts which
induced her to believe that Mr.. Gamble and
Mrs. Hujus slept in the same bed, Mrs. Gam
BILE being i'll and Mr.. Hujus away.
Away, therefore, from the interference Of all
friends and relatives, alone with this man and
this woman, Mrs. Gamble died after having
signed will bequeathing all her property to
her husband. But of what did she die What
was her disease9 Her husband and Mrs.
Hujus said that she died from the immoderate
use of liquor-''drank herself to DEATH" Her
relatives apparently hold that she died from
poison administered with intent to kill her;
but we cannot be too careful how we accept
the view of these relatives, for they may be
only eager to set aside that will and como in
for the money. What do the doctors say?
There are many doctors on the scene. The
first is tho country doctor who was called TO
attend Mrs. Gamble in June and saw her on
several occasions between that time and her
death in August. He is twenty-seven years
old-a defect in doctor for which time does
wonders, but that, meanwhile, is serious. He
saw Mrs Gamble and could not make out that
she had any disease. but thought (agrceably,
perhaps, with Hujus and the husband) that
Mrs. Gamble used too much liquor and suffered
from it. He gave her morphine. He came
in and looked at her from time to
time, he being none the wiser for 1t
and the woman none the better; and notwith-
standing his opinion that she had no disease
she might have had any one of q dozen. He
gave her morphine, opium and podophyllum,
and unless she was taking more morphine than
he ordered the podophyllum should have
purged her pretty freely. There is no evidence
whether II did or did not He gave enough
morphine to embarrass the question whether
or not the woman died from that poison, since
his giving ii might DO used to account for any
found.
AS to the question whether the woman
drank herself to death, II seems to be the
theory only of the husband and Of Mrs. Hujus.
No one Of those who knew Mrs. Gamble well
and saw her frequently ever saw her under
the influence Of liquor. The domestics in the
country never saw her take 1t except when her
husband poured 1t out for her. What became
of the bottle from which he poured Il? Indeed,
the evidence may be accepted as conclusive that
she did not die from the use Of any alcoholic
stimulant. The best part Of this evidence is the
post-mortem examination. Liquor taken in
such quantities as to finally destroy life leaves
neither stomach nor liver in such condition as
those organs presented in the dead body. They
with whom she died alone in that room In the
country house give, therefore, o very lame
reason for her death, when they were not
called upon to give any. All the thoracic, alb
dominal and pelvic organs we're found in tolera-
BILE health. The brain was so far decomposed