The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-11-25

was called to sustain the paper.
Sixth. The production by the defendant OF a
paper as the last will of the deceased, wherein
the accused is named as the sole devisee of con-
siderable property. The name of the father of
the defendant appeared as subscribing witness
to this document lie was not called to sustain
it, probably because there was no evidence ad-
mitted to impeach it. Sixteen days prior to the
date of this paper Miss Stennecke had executed
q different will.
On the part of the defendant it was con-
tended--
First. That there was an utter absence Of all
symptoms of poisoning.
Second. That the Commonwealth entirely
failed in the effort to show the corpus deficit,
and that, to the contrary thereof, it clearly ap-
peared that the death was the result of natural
causes.
Third. That the post-mortem examination
was unskilfully conducted.
Fourth. That the analysis of the contents OF
the stomach and intestines was wholly unre-
liable.
Fifth. That the Commonwealths witnesses
were in many particulars contradicted by them
selves and by Others.
had before your Excellency:-
A. That the Court had erred in allowing hy-
pothetical case, not justified by the facts, to be
submitted to the witnesses.
b. That the Court had erred in certain in
structions to the jury, etc.
c. That the Supreme Court erred in not allow
ing writ of error.
This synopsis of the case may possibly omit
points taken on both sides; but il is believed that
such omissions will be found to consist of mat
tiers in some manner connected with the general
classifcations of the case which have endea-
Vored to present.
The written and oral arguments submitted to
you have been principally directed to the dis
cussion of the question as to whether there were
any symptoms or trace of poison sufficient in
law to justify a conviction.
On the one side. DIR. William P. A Aiken,
teacher of chemistry for over thirty-eight years.
n in hn ITOiyprsitV Of Marv v1ond
for over thirty years. states with great precision
and clearness the particulars of his analysis and
the result He applied two tests-the vapor and
the liquid tests--both of which satisfied him of
the presence of prussic acid. Besides this, his
distillate had faint odor which reminded him
of prussic acid, ''but too faint to be of any i'm
portance by itself"
On behalf of the defendant this part of the
Commonwealth case is very earnestly assailed.
1t is said-
First That the sulphuric acid employed by
Professor Aiken assisted in the production of
prussic acid from the saliva.
Second. That he omitted the most important
of all the tests-that of nitrate of silver.
In support of these (and, perhaps, other)
points several respectable practitioners were eX
| amined on the trial, and q number of learned
| physicians and chemists have recently submitted
| their views thereon in opposition to Professor
| Aiken.
| The disagreement of experts is unfortunately
developed by every case involving scientific in
| ders, j., in one of the earliest cases, said-"l
grant that if matters arise in our law which con-
| cern other sciences or faculties, we commonly
apply for the aid of that science or faculty which
| it concerns" Buckley VS.. Rice Thomas, Plow-
| den, 124.)
| This was over three hundred years ago, but it
| was no new doctrine at that date, Tor experts
| were known to the Roman law. (OrdronauX S
Jurisprudence of Medicine, 129.)
Notwithstanding the antiquity of this usage, l
| doubt whether the case was ever known in which
| there was an entire agreement of experts, and
the ''confusions of science are, doubtless old
| as the rule which admitted the evidence of per-
sons skilled in art.
1t is certainly an elementary rule that, in
searching for poison, every known test should be
| applied, and that the opinion of an expert, how
| ever celebrated is utterly worthless unless he
| can support it by reliable data DR.. Aiken I'M
dertakes to explain the omission Of the nitrate
of silver test. He says its lean only produce
| q cyanide which must afterwards be verified by
| the sulphur and iron tests"
But do not propose to discuss the points
| upon which these learned professors differ. If
| they who have devoted their lives to the study
| of these questions cannot agree as to the re-
| suits, it would be hopeless for others to under
| take q settlement of their controversy.
| The answer given by the law to all of these
| disputations is simply this-The whole question
was thoroughly discussed and fairly submitted
to the tribunal selected for its solution the jury
of the vicinage. They have settled it, and with
them rests the responsibility. Had their verdict
Dccu uSdluSJ Iuc 0fluCuCO, luc COulL WOluu uCN Vi
have entered judgment thereon. Had the Judge
committed any error in admissions or reflections
of evidence or in his instructions to the jury,
writ of error would doubtless have been allowed
The refusal of the GltOcatur by thes Supreme
Court is a decision by our highest tribunal tina
there is no error to be found in the record, an(
their judgment is binding upon the Executive a
to all matters of law within their jurisdiction
The verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon
| of the court below are equally conclusive as Il
| all the questions of fact. In my view this pro
position disposes of the whole case, and unles
the grant of the power to pardon invests tn
| Chief Magistrate with the functions of higl
court of error and appeals, do not see how an.
| of the points so ably and elaborately presented
| by the defendants counsel can have weight.
A case of oppression may be imagined II
which it would be the duty of the Executive t.
interfere but no one can read the charge of th
learned judge who presided at this trial withou
being impressed with its fairness and imparti
ality.
For these reasons I respectfully recommen
that you decline to review the questions passe
upon by the Court and jury. With greatrespect
your Obedient servant,
i. CARROLL BREWSTER,
AttornCy-General.