The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-12

The GAMBLE POISONING CASE.
Eleventh Days Proccedings-Tbe End Of
Margaret Winkler's Crsss-ExnninatiOn-
Important Facts ElicIted-Dr. X. ID. BOGert
ON the stand-He Testines that He Was
Present When Margaret Winlkler was Ques-
TONED BY the Prosccufing Counsel Outside
Of Court-Arrest Of Margaret Winkler ON
the Charge Of Larceny.
The eleventh days proceedings OF the preliminary
examination OF this peculiar OF alleged poison
Ing before Justice Boger, Manuel, Rockland county,
N Y, ELECTED testimony Of material interest In the
progress OF the crOssexaminatIon OF Margaret Wink
Ter, the German domestic in the Gamble family, much
was adduced that contradcted her testimony on the
direct examination. While she was upon the
stand her examination was temporarily suspended
In order TO give one DR.. r. Bogert nephew Of JUS
tce Bogert, an opportunity 10 testify to the
contents OF . bottle which he furnished the pros
ecution and was shown Margaret Winkler the pre-
vious evening, which she recognized as looking like
and smelling like the liquid given to Mrs. Gamble by
Mr. Gamble the Saturday preceding her death. The
defence proved by Dr. B0ger that In the presence OF
himself, the court interpreter, Mr.. Eicho, and the
counsel Of the prosecution Margaret Wlnkler
had been questioned about the contents of this same
bottle before she testified to its alleged similarity
smell and color to the liquid she saw and assisted
Mr.. Gamble in giving the deceased woman, and this
in contradstinction to Margaret winkers testimony
that neither before nor during her exami-
nation had she ever said anything TO any
body or anybody said anything to her, or In
her hearing or In her presence regarding the
color smell OF the liquid drank. In addi-
tion to her testimony, Margaret Winker was
the cause OF some considerable excitement imme-
flor IN ali ~ hafo
she could leave the room after her examination had
rested, constable Demorest, of New City, Rockland
county stepped up to her and arrested her on the
charge or larceny, the execution OF the warrant In
his possession being purposely stayed until she
.shoud tell her story, for the prosecution before
the Justice Margarets exit with the constable was
the closing scene OF the day.
There was on hand the usual array OF lawyers and
people nronsed the foom the sawsy and
every available place either for hearing or seeing
being occupied.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF MARGARET wINKLER CON-
heard the clock strike one as entered MRS Cam
S ,r9 the ~ ss her death
was up STAIRS did not get dinner that afternoon,
got it IN the forenoon; don't know the time only
got then; have noticed other days the hour the
clock struck; don't know what days.
g Can You ten the time Of any other event or CIR,
the clock striker Objected to.
Mr. Clnt0n-The ground on which we have right
to ask this question Is the ordinary ground taken in
cross-examinauon. We have right to sift the EVIL
dence OF the witness and to 60 into irrelevant and
and immaterial matters for that purpose It !, Is
stand intending 70 commit perjury that she has
learned the main facts by heart, and will tell them,
other events and circumstances with view
TO see whether her memory was wholly con-
fined to particular facts, -, and is wholly
Just well calculated to arrest her attention Take
II here IT. as shall contend hereafter, this witness
has deliberately intended TO testify to that which
not true from motives which will not discuss now,
then we have perfect right TO SLIT her evidence,
by showing that although she recoliecs here to an
hour and to q minute, whatever Is now material to
the prosecution, which, she says, she never before
disclosed to human being; yet II 1t follows that
which were Just as much calculated to
arrest her attention as this 1t is material
argument to use 10 testing her credibility.
She recOllectS the minute the clock struck every
occasion where 1t may further the interests OF this
prosecution but In regard to other events she can
not possess or exhibit amy accuracy whatever 1t Ia
under such circumstances. Objection overrnled
Yea ! heard the hour strike the other DAY:
Idont remember nothing about any other event
before this saturday At Mrs. CANDLES by hearing
Saturday keeping the nies OF her; Mr.. Gamble gave
her something to drink that looked red.
At this junoture DR.. r .. Bogert, who had been in
court from Its opening, arose and was walking 70
the door. when Mr. Clinton said, doctor, just one
moments desire You to testify to the contents Of
was shown 70 Margaret winkier last evening"
Dotor-.WelI hurry; my time is preciouan
nas m the sns ns
The examination Of Margaret Winkler was here
suspended, and Dr. R. D. Bogert was sworn.
TESTIMONY OF DR. r. ID. B0GERT.
Q. (By Mr. Daily. What Ia your professionf A.
Physician; reside In Oranaetown, Rockland county,
r; have been practising physician since the Sth
Q. Look at that bottle and its contents and state
what it containsf A. Laudanum-the tincture Of
opium Ia the same; that Is the way We generally ex-
Crossexaminaton-I was present when that bot
Tie with Its contents were shown Margaret winkler
Ing last; heard her testify that the contents Of
glass were given Mrs Gamble by Mr.. Gamble; she
same shown her and 1t contains laudanurn IN the
same quantity then; the bottle did not con-
tain anything else but laudanum, or the tincture Of
o. was the bottle containing the laudanum shown
to the Witness Margaret Winkler, furnished by
shown TO said wtnesss A. Yes, sir.
z. Was the bottle containing the laudanum shown
to the witness on the stand shown 70 her BY you or
q Was the Interpreter tMf. EicnonI prssents A.
O. was the witness. Margaret winkler, ques-
toned through the Interpreter or any other person,
In respectful the similarity In color or smell between
the contente OF any drink said to have been gwen by
Mr. Gamble to Mrs. Gamble on the Saturday afternoon
preceding her DEATH and the contents Of the bottle
Objected TO by the prosecution. that the counsel
must first show that the witness tDr. Boger) under
stood the German language Of Margaret Wnkler
and the interpreter before he can assume that the
present witness tDr. Bogert now On the stand,
knew whether Margaret Wnkler was questioned or
about the bottle and It's contents; and secondly,
that the defendants cannot go into their defence
until the prosecution 10 closed; and thirdly that
they cannot contradict the witness tMargaret Wink
er, unless II be material allegation, and the party
cross-examining upon An irrelevant issue must be
satisfied with the answer and cannot afterwards
adduce evidence TO contradict her.
Mr.. H0ffman--Now n the Court please, there ID
nothing 81 all In this objection. The witness tDr.
Bogertj Ii In position to known whether the wit
nees Margaret winkIer) was questioned through
the interpreter do not care In what language the
questions were put, but H the witness (Dr B0gert)
was present, and II Mr.. Daily, or any other person
representing the prosecution asked the interpreter
lMr Eichon1 TO put that question, he asked II in
English aud the interpreter could understand II;
and II the Interpreter spoke In the German TO
tue witness and the Interpreter gave the
answer OF the witness In English, fancy the Doctor
In sufficiently Intelligent to understand that and
t.af Inn lnafn pntw CnnU twha fhapo bn