The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-12-19

III.
alter the sale Anderson sabine was not aifsa sSi
those men, and that they had threatened TO Se'
his CUTS out
was called in reference 70 Dr. rish's character, and
prone 1t good. 80
The DEFENCE ATTEnrT TO USE MRS. ANDERSON AS
The defence called Nrs. Sarah o. Anderson
tsensatlon). and the widow stepped from her seat
beside Mrs Irish to the witness stand.
please believing it not to be legal that this person
should be sworn, AMI feeling 1t my duty to try
this case, as far as know, according to law. I
object to her being sworn ~ witness.
Counsel for defence-UDon what grounds
Mr.. Brtton-That she Is not competent. have
stated the ground upon which rely.
Counsel for deience-I suppose the ground Is that
she is indicted Jointly with the defendant.
Mr.. Britton-That is one ground now urge to
Mr.. Tracy, OF counsel for defence-This raises .
very important question OF evidence, one OF the
most important perhaps, that Il will become
we Offer how, We o1er her in the first place on
her behalf as witness at her own request, and IN
the second place We offer to call her on the motion
when the question is disposed OF, II Your Honor's
opinion should be against the admissibillty or the
Witness we shall ask TO put both OF these REQUESTS
In form-first, that she is offered on her own be.
half at her own request, and, second, she Is
CALLED BY THE DEFENDANT
Is witness on hls vSs.9,i-the defendant on trial
to review briefly the history Of the modification OF
the rules OF evidence at common law, which has
been effected by various statutes In the state since
the adoption OF the Constitution OF l846. Counsel
then Proceeded to review tins subject, and in a
Lengthy argument contended that nliue the statute
s a Andersen % SO was s aa ws
cases ea Ne sane ies'ias tSsy had sssn % I0r
sssg s II tn As stsfs Il hf fy sea
= MRS. ANDERSON WAS NOT COMPETENT.
II b0tn> pr. Irish and Mrs. Anderson were on
trial the detlaCaton OF the latter as to the guilt OF
either would be competent. II she were placed
upon the-stand now 1t would not he competent in
this case to prove her declarations in this regard.
Mr.. Brtton referred to the statute alluded to by
the counsel for the defence and said IL was passed
In 1862 1t was conceded on all parts that at CON-
mon law this witness or this individual would not
close Of 1872 and from that time to this
1t was without precedent that party charged
under such circumstances mad been sworn as q
witness in the case. 1t had been argued over and
over again, and in u tribunal in this county where
two Of the learned judges Of this Court sat. and
passed upon.
Judge Pratt reserved his decision for the present
MORE GENEALOGICAL TESTIMONY.
Dr. Bird testified to the Doctors good character
and sufferings when he entered DR.. lrish's store
the night before his death, said that it was
reasonable conclusion that Anderson at that time
suffered from the primary cause OF death, arsenical
On the cross-examinatlon by Mr.. Brtton witness
said that arsenic taken as powder was q severe
caustic; he never knew case where it was taken
as powder alone; it had tendency as caustic,
and If retained in the mouth 1t would certainly act
O. Suppose on Monday evening that is, the even
ing before his death) Mr.. Anderson v0mited fre-
burning sensation in his stomach, that he fre.
quently had great pain there, and on Monday
evening he went to druggist and there CON-
BURNING SENSATION
and Of this pain and there v0mited; and suppose
the druggist knew the fact that he had previously
siderably If you please-and you were that drug
gist, what would you say was the matter with
him A. Ii had previously treated him for gas.
Mr. Britton, intcrrupting the witness, said he
had not asked anything about gastritis. lie SUBJ
mitted that there was evidence In this case that
Anderson was treated for gastritis.-
Then there was long talk between the lawyers,
and before any definite result had been attained
the Court took recess for an hour.
THE DOCTOR DID NOT COME AS AN EXPERT.
After recess DR., Bird took the stand again, and
was asked by Mr.. Britton what experience ne had
had with the properties OF arsenic. He said he had
treated cases, but he was not an expert In tOXl-
cology; he did not come here for that purpose he
subject Of acute gastrits to be an expert and did
not consider that acute and chronic gastritis
separate diseases; the same cause which produced
chronic gastritis would cause acute gastritis; he
had known cases Of acute gastritis
PRODUCED EY OTHER CAUSES
than poison. ChriStisOn was very good au-
thorty on poison and stood exce'lentfon read
physicians ana tcH'6f my own part, the more the
nom Nhlss' Investigated the more am led to doubt
arise in this country from any other cause than
poison" In reply to question as to his opinion
on tins statement Witness M gas
any foreign element IN the stomach-is extremely
rare in this climate"
POISON IN THE BARRoOM
Mr. Morris-Are you able to say whether the
common liquors in common gin mills contain any
poison9 A. have made no analysis, but have
read extensive statments upon that subject,
made carefully by chemists and believe that
liquors IN many instances contain posons.
Mr. BrittOn ELECTED from the witness that II that
quantity Of arsenic which could be held on the
point OF penknife were taken by q man very
slight quantity would adhere to the tongue and
thrta but he twitness) could not tell how much
would produce rawneSS.
number OF witnesses were examined with ref
erence to Dr. Irish's character, all OF whom pro-
nouncd him man Of good character and kind
Mrs. Abbie wyman saw Mrs. Anderson the day
after her husbands death, and she m0urned
greatly. During the examination of this witness
MRS. ANDERSON BEGAN TO WEEP,
and her sobbing was heard throughout the court
room, Several sympathetic ladies seated about
her also wept. This little incident created a stir
among the spectators.
Mrs Jameson stated that Mrs. Anderson wanted
her husband at one time to go to Yonkers so that
REFORMED IN HIS HABITS;
after his death the widow disposed OF some OF her
lion oft; Mrs. Jameson saw nothing but affection
between the husband and wife, and when Ander.
son died the widow mourned deeply.
After leaving the stand Mrs. Jameson embraced
Mrs. Anderson and kissed her. Both seemed
greatly affected.
william II. Bard knew Anderson since 1885,
Mr.. Morrs-Do you rccollect any occasion in 1855
or 1856 when he attempted TO drown hlmselfg
Mr.. Britt0n objected.
Mr. Morris contended that they had right to
show that Anderson had disposition to suicide
Counsel, however, then asked the question OF wit
ness IL he remembered any occasion when
ANDERSON ATTEMPTED TO DROWN HIMSELF,
and Mr.. Bard replied in the Affirmative.
The defence left the matter just as 1t stood.
10 other witnesses were called yesterday. Be-
fore adjournment
Mr.. Britton inquired whether the Court would
reserve decision on the question OF the competency
OF Mrs. Anderson as witness or decide the matter
thcnY
Judge Pratt prefer to reserve formal de-
cision until tomorrow morning but will put an
on the back or the writ REMINDING
the prisoner, and in case 1t Is determined against
the defence that will end 1t. If 1t Is determined in
favor Of her being Witness why then she will be
brought up again. In regard to this question, If
there are any authorities the Court would like to
have them submitted There is some doubt about
ii, taking into consideration