The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1877-02-16


honest verdict. l only know my cller
: through the same testimony that he
y been delivered to you
TUESDAY. P. M.-Frank c. Dauef
erty commenced his argument for tn
!. prosecution. he approached his dutle
with an emotion of fear and trenholm
: He acknowledged his courtesies to tn
= court and to the attorneys for tn
prisoner. Counsel upon both lid, ha
discharged. as be believed. the dutie
|, confided to them. Of late years Grim
. has become so prevalent that a clas
= known as "detectives"-of compara
|, lively modern origin-had been calle'
into being for the purpose of protect
! ing life and property.
! Much has been said of the power
1 public opinion and upon the new-pap
+ Ter press that had been brought TO pea
, upon this question. Were these ale
! lgations often made by counsel for de
! tense true, the influences complained
of have not been manifested in thI
court room during the trial now pend
, ing. Sixteen long hours have beeI
spent in defamiug witnesses, aud IN al
,, effort to discredit their testimony, ant
even to make a defendant OF one o
the prominent witnesses. Murder, per
Jury, and nearly all the crimes mad,
mentioned of in the decalogue, have
been charged upon witnesses of the
prosecution.
Counsel maintained that circum
stantial evidence, when the chain wal
unbroken, was more conclusive thar
any positive evidence. Now, beyond
a reasonable doubt" it is incumbent
upon the State to prove the prisoner
guilty of the crimes charged IN the bill
of indictment. A reasonable doubt ID
a reasonable uncertainty, and il is the
tendency of jurors TO give their yer
diets in favor of the largest latitude oi
the meaning of that phrase, and thus,
r. possible, evade the discharge of dis
agreeable duties. Prosecution must
establish, beyond reasonable doubt
that the person is dead, and that death
resulted from the commission of q
crime. To apply the principle to tnis
case, We must prove, first that defend.
ant had arsenic in his possession; sec.
ond, that he had opportunities of com
mitting the crime charged. Counsel
then referred TO prisoners conduct
after the poisoning, and claimed that
it was conclusive against the prisoner.
We do not ask you, however, to pro
nounce your judgment upon this con-
duct alone; but you are to consider
I this in connection with collateral evi-
depce. Now as to whether deceased,
Melissa Charles, died of poison, coun
! sci would not refer to a fact which
must be SO self evident to the Jury, had
not the defense undertaken SO elabor-
ately, to throw doubt as to the cause
of her death. Drs. Sturgeon, Daven-
port, Yoder and others, described the
symptoms in almost precise conformity
to those recorded in standard medical
books. II cannot be claimed, in the
light of all the evidence, that all the
symptoms of irritant poisoning was
present amongtall the sufferers before
; the arrival of DIR. Sturgeon and before
he had made any prescription. Pro
fessors Cassel and Wormley, eminent
as possessing knowledge of toxicollogy,
and eight other medical witnesses
agree III all the essential points regard
ing the effects of arsenical poisoning,
and the antemortem symptoms of Mrs.
Melissa Charles. Counsel defended the
witness, DIR. Sturgeon, from the as
saults made upon him, and o onounc-
ed that gentleman, as one who, in
Judgment OF counsel was among the
best educated practitioners in medi
zine in this quarter of Ohio; and that
it WAS to his skill, and judicious treat
ment, that nearly every member of the
poisoned families had not perished.
Counsel then read synopsis of the
medical testimony given before the
coroDer's jury, at the post mortem ex-
of the body of Melissa
and particularly of the evi
dence offered by Drs. Davenport Bal
lard aud Sturgeon. IL it has not been |
settled by evidence, that, beyond a |
doubt, Melissa Charles died |
Of arsenical poisoning, then 10 point |
has ever been established before any |
court. Because DR.. Sturgeon, the |
physician who attended the Charles
families swore to the truth regarding
the symptoms and causes which pro-
duced the death of Melissa Charles, he
has been maligned and denounced by
counsel for defense rs though he were
murderer and perjurer. And why
does DIR. Davenport, whose testimony
harmonizes entirely with that of DIR.
Sturgeon, escape the decunciations
heaped upon DIR. Sturgeoni Because
lt was found necessary to select and
crush out one victim and DIR. Sturgeon
would answer their purpose better.
Counsel assumed that it had been
proved, beyond all question that the
deceased, Mrs. Charles, had died from
the effects of irritant poison. The sec
ond proposition, that the poison was
by introducing it into the
bread of which Melissa Charles ate.
counsel would now establish. lie
would refer to the evidence of Anna
Charles as conclusively establishing
his fact. Anna noticed her mother
eating of this bread and also some cur
'ents that had been removed from a
in can. Now, is the suggestion that
he poison might have been in the cur
'ents a national one9 That point
counsel would examine hereafter.
Now, the infant children ate no cur
'ents, but were fed upon sweetened tea ,
md bread. and they were attacked
With the same symptoms. Now, it
'ould not have been in the sugar or {
ca, or milk, because Melissa did not s
,artake of either of those articles. The {
Inference, then, is irresistible that the &
'oison was in the bread, and in that {
'nly. 1t was proved by DR.. CasseII
hat arsenical poison would have the |
anne effect upon fowls as upon persons,
nd feeding upon the same bread of
which members of the Charles families 1
poisoned and killed two tur- 1
eys that fed upon it. 1t had been t
learly established that the newly
aked bread was the only bread of /
1hich the families partook, and thar a
ortions of it were the same pieces that .
7ere taken possession of by DIR. Stur
con, and were subsequently anaIyzed Q
y Prof. Cassell in Cleveland. c
Some very cheap and unreasonable =
had been suggested regard .
,g the bread that had been analyzed !,
y DR.. Cassell, and among these was =
ne possibility that arsenic might have =
cen in the pocket of DR.. Sturgeon, =
hen he had carried the bread from =
ne house of Elijah Charles to his office !.
Ada, where he securely locked it up :
! desk. As reasonable would be the !
opposition that the air contaminated
ne bread, Upon careful analysis, :
rof. j. l.. Cassell discovered that a =
iece half the ze of his thumb con- :.
lined from two to four grains. HAD ! !
lis analysis resulted differently, that 7
/, had there been no arsenic or other Il
olson detected in the bread, it would =
ave been the last of the case of the Y
tate Of Ohio VS.. Isaac b. Charles a
ounsel recapituiated the prominent q
,atures in the testimony of Professors u
n asssau Worualr and g.. - II q