The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-08

This morning, at ~ o'clock, the arguments in
the schoeppe case were commenced in the
Supreme Court. The presiding Judge, In open
ing the case, stated that before the paper-books
OF the counsel could be examined it was ques-
ton how this case came to this court. The time
OF the act of Assembly under which the writ of
error was brought had expired. The allocatur
should have been filed within thirty days. II had
not been so filed. The material In the paper
books would all have been in place within the
thirty daye. Only one way was open by which
the case could come, and that Is by supposing
cord
Hon. s. Hebron, counsel for the prisoners.
stated in reply that the statute under which the
writ had been allowed by the Attorney General
contained no thirty-day limitation. He then
read the authorities on the subject.
George Northrop, for the prisoners, said
that writs OF error could be made either by the
allowance of the Supreme Court or by the
consent of the Attorney General. In cases where
there is an allowance of the court, the consent
of the Attorney-General could not apply and
uice UerSd.
1t was contended that all was done that was
necessary to be done within the thirty days.
Judge Sharswood thought that there was no
motion to quash, and could not be under the
circumstances.
Judge Read said that the difficulty arose from
the fact that all the sections were combined in
one act. The allocatur had been refused by two
Judges, on the ground that there was no ground
Tor the writ of error.
After consultation of the judges, IL was de-
cided to hear the case, and reserve any opinion
upon the legality of the hearing for the present
w. IL. Miller, Esq, then opened the argument
for the prisoner. He said that in cases where
there was strong popular opinion against a
prisoner, a writ of error was the only hope
The main point in the case was to show that the
n,OrtlltS deleCtS was not proven. This could be
shown by scientific proof, by which Is meant
scientific facts supported by the authority of
persons who are known or proven authorities
on scientific subjects.
friti1t mr. % m N fial
evidence the circumstance should be as clear
and connected as if was proved undisputably.
| Also, the true cause of death must be clearly
proven. No other hypothesis should be able to
| account for the fact.
1t is better that ten guilty persons should
escape than that one innocent person should
| suffer. The court is the balance wheel. Where
the jury has been at all affected by personal
feelings it is the duty of the court to set aside
the verdict 1t can be shown that the testimony
in this case contained so much guessing that it
did not at all amount to certainty.
| The post mortem examination was a very
| bungling affair A young man performed a sort
of dissection to procure the stomach for chemi-
! cal analysis. He made no examination of the
kidneys. DR.. Eakin found what he called a
| faint trace of prussic acid in the stomach. 1t
| was found by color test only. This would not
be allowed as a post mortem examination in
either England, France, or Prussia.
The very fact that Miss Steinnecke lived for
| twenty-four hours after there was any chance to
| pIussic acid entirely The longest case on
| record was where person lived one hour after
the application of prussic acid, so quickly does
| il do its work. A post-moItem to be of any ac-
count must be complete and exhaustive, SO that
| no organs are overlooked in which death could
| lurk. brought on by other causes.
Dr. Conrad stated that he made no eXamina-
ton of the spine or spinal marrow. for the
reason, as he stated, that it was unnecessary
He made an incison in the cranium and found
that there was softening of the brain. He
thought there had been no apoplexy, because he
found no clot. There could have been death
from apoplexy with all the symptoms without
any clot. This might have been another cause
of death. Miss Stennecke was short, fat person,
about sixty-fve years of age. Apoplexy occurs
most often among ieshy and elderly persons.
poison who outlive twelve hours. Miss STEM
necke lived twenty-four hours after DR.. Schoeppe
had been with her.
The opinions of all the noted medical men of
Philadelphia were against that of DIR. Conrad.
Should this one opinion of this young man out
balance that of all the others? He was young
and inexperienced man. He was no chemical
expert Should the life OF a man depend on his
testimony?
On the trial the judge charged the jury that
proof of poison was necessary for conviction,
but it did not matter what poison. Only two
poisons are mentioned in the evidence as at all
the probable cause of the death-prussic acid
and morphia. Morphia was not brought in
until an acquittal was found on the ground of
prussic acid.
In the testimony one of the witnesses testified
that he had seen hawk killed by prussic acid,
and that Miss Stennecke's physiognomy looked
something like that of the hawk.
| After Professor Eaken had obtained the mate
rial of the stomach, he put it in tin bucket, in
which ii was carried TO the laboratory. There
he placed it In vessels without trying if any OF
these vessels were clean or had been used for
other chemical tests. He used the iron test, not
the more delicate one with nitrate of silver.
With the iron test he said he obtained the
Prussian blue Immediately; whereas ii is said
. that the blue does not come at first, but the
solution is at first green. He said this was the
first time that he ever experimental with the
human stomach in a search for poison. He gave
! two reasons for not using the delicate silver
tests one was that half his material was not suffi
cient for the operation Of this test (t had beer
divided for the eXperiments), the other, tha
the test is not accurate. Are these reasons trut
| or false? The silver test will work when ther,
| is only one drop of the material. He here hat
,, one-half of the whole amount. The authoritie
| on the accuracy of the test are all against him
T | He distilled the substance OF the stomach will
! | sulphuric acid after the material was partl'
putrid. Authorities show that prussic acid vii
be produced under these circumstances iron
4 | natural causes.
He failed to produce a precipitate which wa
the only form which would prove the pre-
q sence of prussic acid with certainty. Yet h
: says there was an odor of the acid, of bruise
I peach leaves, the production of which odo
: would require the presence of the acid in larg
: quantities. Its presence in such large quantitie
would certainly give the preeipitate; the effect
: oil IL would certainly have been seen in othe
y ways. There was no foaming at the mouth o
= clnching OF the fingers of the patient
t The whole bodyIof this scientific evidence wa
K given TO the jury without any directions as Il
e what testimony they were to allow and wha