Litchfield enquirer., 1869-02-04


 less than ten people now in this court house in whose stemachs. in case of sud- den death, strychnia would be discovered. No appreciable quantity was found in the organs examined by Prof. Barker. He says he cannot testify that there was even half q grain of strychnia in that woman's whole system. The first lin k in the evidence for the prosecution, therefore, IS very weak. But they say akat the symptoms proved show death by stryclinia poison. We can not admit this Many of the marked and peculiar features pf strychnia poison were entirely wantings In the first place. the patient was nncqhscions, whereas a person poisoned by stryehnia is always conscious. How happens it. that Green labored for something lils D recognition in vain? Conl.l he ayetlesired it if he poisoned her? Would not her firh question, in such case. have been about the new medicine he had given her. that night, with the unusual bitter taste? Ds Sanford found nothing unusual In the condition of the heart. Yet according to the authorities he would hay e done, had death b<en caused by strychnia. This might have been q Case of tetan,ls. It often occurs from injuries so slight as to have been forgotten by the patient, even from exposure to the changes of the wealth CT, and its symptoms might easily have been mistaken for the effects of strychnia. Even If the case rested here we might claim that the proof was insufficient But We can admit that this woman died of strychnia poison and yet not admit that she WIS mnrlered The accumulation of strychnla in the system, from use of pat tent medicines. was practically possible even on Prof. Barker's testimony. That she was killed by Small doses, repeated and accumnatine, IS the only way of account ing for tte extraordinary, unprecedented fact of her having lived SIX hours after the first ;spasm.
 Suppose you come to the conclusion that the str, chnia Was given intentionally, where is the proof that the prisoner gave it? Oae grain of stryehni. will make % gallons of Water perceptibiy bitter. How happens 1t that Mrs. Green came out to the supper table and never complained of having taken so extraordinary il dose?
 Feeilng tine Weakness of their case in these most important points, they bring in this perlured Tailman, to fprovea confes- sion. The portion of hls story relating to Greens having got the poison at W.,eA- tons store, is entirely new. He says he thought of 1t while testifying on the for
 
 jed Greeu! Wonll you wish hereafter, to think that you had hung Wm. H. Green on such testimony as that of Tailman? Be- sides, Mir. Botsford and others testify that he admitted to them ta.t he committed perjury on the former trial. Peck's testi- mony affords no corroboration, whatever IG was very natural tilat Gfesn should s,,y he Was Sorry he hili furnished I tllm ln auy |, t,, 1, i.o,
 You may have your own private convic- tions, gentle anen. that Green is uot d good man; that he his desecr,st,l |; holy call Ing; but you should bo careful not to con vict him of murder on that -:.,.couat. I think We have right to Say, OH tue facts proved, and on the testimony of Dr. North, that there is no sufficient evidence of death by poison. I think the evidence indicates that even if Mrs. Green ,ild die of strych- nine poison, 1t was given ln sln til doses, in patent or regular medicines, and SO accu- malatel is to prove fatal to ler enreebled system think that ev.n if you should believe that she cam l., her death by in tentional poisoning, there is no certainty that the strychnine was administered by the prisoner. 1 think the pabiic safety requires that you shpuLl not jump at con but rest solely on the evidence f.lducet before yon.
 .as a JUoaE BurLER's CHARGE
 The evidence and the arguments being now in, it is my duty to instruct you ;Is to the law, ,and then commit both. the law and facts to your decision. l should perhaps say Something of your duties. Tne purity ot the jutlici ,ry Is of the first consideration. And in the term j.l liciary is included not only the judge on the bench, but the jury, tue prosecuting attorneys, and the officers of tue law having charge of criminals. This charge of persecution against tine prosecuting authorities Is d very cotnnon one to make, ,..nd feel it my dlty ia thi, case to caution you against 1t. We are all off ,ers of the Law, aud you, especi lily, are bound by the most solemn oath kuown to our law, '' before tie EyerIiviug God," to do justice.
 You must be convinced beyouI a re;sson able doubt of the prisoners guilt The testimony of 8 single witness is not suffi cient for conviction Ill q capital c.,se; but it is not necessary that every material fact should be found by the testimony of at least two witnesses or circumstances equiv alent thereto. Defines murder.)
 Two great facts must be proved: that t,e deceased died of poison; that the prisoner administered that poison intending to take her life. Portions of the body have been examined by . competent chemist who testifies that he found poison in sufficient quantities to destroy life. Tire symptoms of this poison arc peculiar. It is beyond question that it occasions peculiar contrac. tions of the muscles called tonic spasms Every part is cramped. to use common term, and this general contraction is the conUutsioa. Then there are intervals of re. taxation followed by other eonvulsions Incidental to this contraction is the bend ing back of the body, because the mus cies of the back are the strongest In most cases the mind Is clear. Death may be produced in two ways: during the spasin, by the muscles being so drawn as to- canse suffocation; from exhaustion, resulting from these general cramps. The State claim that in this case they have found these symptoms, and that there were no other that could have destroyed life. That, gen. tlemen,is for you to enquire. The defence claim that all the symptoms of poison by strychnia were not present. Thai the brain was not clear, and they read authorities on this point. Such is the case generally. It Is for yOu tO say if tha Svmnto,nc ara nfE