The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-28

which is used in the forgery. These we're facts
proved by the evidence.
w. II. Miller, ESQ., followed for Sehoeppe,
contending that the act of 1870 covers all cases
of murder before execution, because there we're
vested rights TO be interfered with as In civil
cases. This was merely the extension of a re-
medy in criminal case, as in civil action, We
might go back to ascertain the reason of the
enactment. The debates of the Legislature
showed 1t was to meet this very case and 1t was
passed in time to meet 1t had the Governor
signed it when presented. IL was an enabling
statute. The matter now asked was not before
the Court judicially when they ruled, under the
common law, that they saw no error on the face
of the record. Counsel on the other side
alleged that this act made the Supreme Court a
Jury to decide upon the fact. This was erro-
ne0us. 1t only enabled the Supreme Court to
determine whether the ingredients of the evil
dence were sufficient to convict of murder in the
first degree. 1t was urged that this case was
not pending under the act of 1870. Should it
be said in common humanity, that when man
has been shut out and the door barred, If he
comes back with ticket of admission which
may save his life, that he is to be refused read
mission on mere technically? He held this act
carried the admission of bills of exception; but
iii did not it certainly did not repeal the act
of 1SG0 which would now, combined with this
act, bring in bill of exceptions.
Justice Agnew said that the act of 1850 did
not bring up the bill Of EXCEPTIONS then how
were we any better off now than we were
before? The writ of error under the common
law had been decided. Have we anything more
If We reopen the judgment? is this pending
writ of error, which was not pending writ at
the passage of the act? Does this act revive the
writ? Does it at all affect this case?
Mr.. Miller replied that he believed this act
was the same as in civil cases. Would not the
Teopening of the case on the new act involve
the old writ of error?
Chief Justice Thompson said the trouble was
in the fact that at the time of the passage of the
act of 1870 the writ was not pending.
MIR. Miller then proceeded with his review OF
the law and evidence in the case, the burden of
his argument being in reference to the corpus
| delictj, entering into scientific discussion of
the merits of the test applied, and the post NOR
| tenn examination. DR.. Aiken's test was faulty,
! and there were three important parts not exa-
mined. She might have died of Brights disease,
yet her kidneys, the only part by which to ascer-
| tain the fact, were not examined.
Chief Justice Thompson observed that per-
sons so old seldom died of Bright's disease;
and that it could always be detected in the
wasting of the kidneys through urinatiou.
Mr.. Miller cited the case of an old lady in
! New York.
Chief Justice Thompson remarked that it was
to be regretted that we had not here a jurs-
consult, as in other countries; because in pecu-
liar cases like this he never knew case in
which medical men did not differ.
Mr.. Miller said there was not only an absence
OF symptoms of prussic acid, but complete
contradiction. There was no foaming at the
mouth-no contraction of the muscles. The de
ceased lived for twenty-three hours after DR.
Schoeppe left her, which shows conclusiyely
that she did not die from prussic acid, because
its victims always expire in from three to five
minutes after its administration There were
no pOSt-mortem appearances of morphia either
and it is not pretended to prove th
by DOSt-mOrtem examination. For this allega
tion the symptoms alone were urged; and ther'
was not q symptom in favor of morphia that die
not attend apoplexy. In reply to an allegation
made by Mr.. Shearer that the check was forgeC
by Schoeppe to pay her funeral expenses, Mr.
Miller accepted the allegation, and said that th
Court below should not have construed this int,
a motive for the crime of murder.
The argument then closed, the Court reservinl
their decision