The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-09
ElaAL xNTnLLxGnMcu.
Supreme Court in Banc-judaes Reed, Agne,y.
ShRrswOod, and VILLA ms. Chief Justice
Thompson MT Nisi Prius
THE sCHOEPPE CASE.

CONTINUATION OF THE ARGUMENT THIS MORN
ING.
The Sehoeppe case was continued in the
Supreme Court this morning, Mr. Miller con-
tinuing for the prisoner. Judge Read before
the argument was recommended, remarked to
the counsel that they had been heard at great
length esterday on what did not concern this
court. The counsel must confne their remarks
to points included in the record. Mr. Miller
then continued as follows:-
We had right TO presume that this hypothetical
case 70 go TO tile jury should contain ali the facts
the facts of importance. We had no right TO manu-
facure evidence for the jury by putting additional
facts in hypothetical case, as the other side has
done. The Court, referring to a special medical
one poison may DC modihed by the presence of an
other, may IL not be that the symptoms produced nv
prussic acid alone may be produced by the mixed
poisons OF prussic acid and morphia? DR.. Harmon,
in giving his testimony. said he never heard 0 case
where person had been poisoned by this com
pound. He thought only that the presence of tne
one would rctaTd the action of the other and nro-
long the sufrerngs OF the patient He said that he
thought so from his own reasoning, and was willing
to testify TO the fact This same scientific eyperf
when asked what antidote he would have given for
this combination OF poisons, replied that he "woud
have administered iron, To turn into prllssisn blne
and then would have stirred her up with electri,
CITY," ct this man is called scientific expert a Il
his testimonys allowed coming from such nerson
Though he has no knowledge of science from his own
confession either from books or cXperence vet hie
testimony Is allowed by the court and IL s snnItted
To the Jury Here where the verdict involves human
the case involved ten cents. The court IN giving
the above suggestion relating 10 possible symntonS
OF the action OF mixed poison, undertook to argue
the case in favor OF the commonwealth an unheard-
OF innovation, especially where human life depends
on the result. paper purportng to be the viii of
Miss Stennecke was produced. The witness of this
Will has not been produced, by either the prosecu-
tion or the defense, 80 that there was no evidence
before the court that this was genuine will Bv so
uong they in fact say to the juryf you from your
own passions and opinions, consider this genuine
will, you may so consider it, but II you do NOT 40
consider it, it need not be allowed.
We ask II the moral evidence has not something to
do with the scientific facts? We ask this court TO
decide on the moral and scientific evidence not
scientific evidence alone, especially where it is of
| such low degree of excellence. We had to battle
| against different ways OF prosecution. AS soon as
| we understood that we were assaled in one way
and were prepared for it, we were told that that was
not the scientific theory OF the court The scientific
evidence rests the evidence OF q man who states
that he has no experience in that particular drec-
| tien. His opinion should therefore be of no
| weight But the court says that skilled
physician is competent person TO express an opinion
on the action OF combined poison. But this is not
what we said. The doctor is not o skilled physician.
He himself says that he is not In that particular
Any one OF us could have given as good an opinion
When the Court takes the theory that the life OF
Miss Stennecke was prolonged by the effects OF the
counter poison morphia on the action of the prussic
acid, keeping Miss Stennecke alive for twenty-four
| hours we had right to ask, as we did, that this
| evidence, to be submitted to the jury, should be
supported by proof But the Court did not answer
| in this. They passed 1t over as If it was un-
worthy OF reply. The check of Miss Stennecke
| for $50, which was presented at the Carlisle Bank
on the day after her death, was alleged to have
been forgery, so as to have motive for the mur-
! der. The question arises whether this check has
any relation to the cause also, whether it showed
motive for the murder. II it was a forgery what
| motive did 1t prove? This is q distinct, substantive
| ofense not connected with the murder. They saw
| It was q forgery because it was dated before her
| death. or course it would be dated at time prior
to her DEATH They allege the same thing in refer
| ence to the will. III the Will was forgery he was
expecting to get the whole estate, then why should
he forge check for $50? This would suppose that
| Dr. Schoeppe had stulti6ed himself. 1t is SAYING
that he would prefer trial for murder to that for
| forgery. But there was another motive for the
minds OF the jury by leading them to suppose that
| man who could be guilty OF one lesser crime would
most likely be guilty OF the other and greater one.
THE DEFENSE.
Mr.. c. E. Maglaughn, District Attorney from
Carlisle, opened for the Commonwealth as foiows:- :
The opposition attacks the chemical testimony
mainly. The chemist was known authority He
had been experienced with chemistry for years. and
was professor OF chemistry in the Maryland Inst
tute. He used nearly all the tests known to chemists
for prussic acid He used the odor the iron and the
supur tests. They say that he could not have had
true test because he used sulphuric acid and they
OF prussie acid from the natural saliva which was In
the stomach. To get these traces the saliva would
have to have been present in such quantities that
Its presence could not possibly have been overlooked
and noted by the experimenter. They say that she
could have died from Brights disease. The symp
toms OF this disease are light thin blood and cold
| We proved that the body was warm and that the
blood was thick and dark red There was not only
this one opinion of a medical man. Four physician!
testified that they found traces OF both morphia and
| prussc acid.
These physicians gave their unanimous opinion thai
this woman did not die from natural causes, bu
from the cambined effects OF morphia and prussiC
acid. The opposing counsel charge US with moi
having used all the symptoms in the Hypothetical
case On the testimony OF the Philadelphia College
OF Physicians and other authorities which they in
clude in their printed book, mention is made of the
strongest symptom OF the administration OF prussiC
acid which we have used in the hypothetical case
and which they do not even notice. They saw ina
doath may have been produced by aroplexy. Blu
apopleXy may may be e, proven after death There
but the Slight softening OF the brain, II she haC
! died from this cause there would certainl,
have been a clOt OF blood the BRAIN III there i,
any doubt of the scientific testimony, the jury mus
be allowed TO take all the facts OF the case into CON
sideratOn to prove the corpus delcti Ii this Werf
not so, we would have protection for poisoners
Here we have the case OF a man who knows all Tho
properties OF the drugs which he handled and knew
y exactly the minimum amount OF poison which WOult
I leave the least traces. Our testimony proves tha
SchRppe had purchased poison on certain day Or
| the next day, about 10 O'Clock, he was alonI
/ | with Miss Stennecke In her room. Abou
/ | ~ O'Clock he was again alone with her. Mis-
Stennieke called for the chambermaidto bring her
o spoon. DR.. Schoeppe receives the spoon and doe
not allow the chambermaid TO enter the room
About O'Clock in the afternoon she was seized viii
violent dt Of vomiting on tn that night the ecps
: | the scientific man they say he was, he would bay
been employed with this phenomenon, unless he ha
G something of more Importance to attend TO. A
: that time he was again alone with MsssStenneke h
her room, and at about twenty minutes after eigh
O'Clock he was seen running down the hotel stairs
I on the next day, when he was told tina
! around the room smelling the bottles an
saying 81 wonder II she could have taken ANYTHING
His conduct before, and also after the death an
funeral, was very peculiar as may be seen from IN
evidence. 1t has been said that we attemnted +
prove the will forgery. We tried TO project IN
. Jury from the suppostion that it was false viii
s inc. The Judge distinctly charged the Jury thq
j. there was no evidence TO prove the will a forgery