The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1877-02-16
FIFTEENTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY, Feb. II, 1877.

WEDNESDAY, FEB. IA, 1871.
Mr.. Dongh-rry, counsel for defense,
resumed his argument.
Yesterday. we were successful in IS
tsblishing two points: tir-tly, that the
poison was plsc-d i'll the bread and
secondly. that Melissa Charles died Il
having eaten uf the bread thus !
) soned. Now. Counsel would consider
tthe evidence which had been adduced
to show that the prisoner placed the
, poison in the material designed to be
, used as food. 1t might have got into
. the water, the yeast, or the flour.
That the water used by the family, du
ring many years, Was naturally poison
ous. is refuted by the fact that those
who had habitually used it, never e1-
|, perienced any bad results from its use.
|. These facts, SO well established, placed
the matter not only beyond reason
able doubt, but beyond the possibility
Of doubf. The flour, OF which the
bread was made, had been boughr at
Reams' mill, and counsel m the other
side had drawn the unreasonable infer
ence that poison may have been CON-
municated through the French burrs
used i'm the mill, around some part of
which lead was used. But OH the same
day, and within almost the same hour,
a cloud of witnesses testify that tn y
bought and afterwards used -four taken
from the same chest, and the -four
thus used never was att nded with in-
furious results. The poison could not
have been introduced into the h1ur
before it left Ream's mill. The same
making of yeast of which the poisoned
bread was made, was used in Mr., Hal
sey's family, who lived near to Elijah
Charles, had been used without harm,
as it had been previous to this poison
ing by the family of Elijah. There can
be no reasonable doubt as to he tesri
mony establishing the point regarding
the yeast.
Of all the crimes ever commits d,
and recorded in criminal annals there
have been none equaling the wicked
ness of this attempt at wholesale pois
oning, by whomsoever it may have
been committed. Now to connect
+, this defendant with this poisoning is
!! my next dut,. 1t could not have been
/ by accident or mistake that it had
been placed there. Counsel hen re-
viewed the evidence of the witnesses
who had at different times sold the ac-
cused arsenic. The testimony of Fred
Meyer, a fellow prisoner in tue Jail.
that defedant stated to him that he al
ways had arsenic in his house for the
purpose of feeding it to hogs, is, OF
itself, conviction of the prisoner out
of his own mouth. That he had
bought arsenic, and that he had fre
quent opportunities of using it crimi-
nally, is in proof so plain that all the
attempts to successfully controvert it
have mi>erably failed. That he was
seen in the milk house at three differ
ent times. and on one occasion alone,
on Tuesday, 9Th of June, was in the
evidence of Anna Charles. These Wis
its to the milk house had never been
made before, to the knowlege OF Eli
jah or any other member of his family.
Now this dis. oses of one opportunity.
On this same Tuesday, on the 9th of
June Isaac learned from his brothers
family that on the day following (Wed
nesday.) he would go to the Ada mill
TO purchase flour. and prisoner invited
Anna to accompany her parents and
come to his house, and Elijah, wife
and daughter did go to Isaac's house
and there had dinner. Here, after
dinner, an opportunity was offered
prisoner to get to Elijah's wagon, while
the latter was absent few moments,
to visit the wagon and tamper with the
-four. He not only had this opportu-
nifty but he made it.
And now as to the motive for the
preparation of this crime. Motives
that would control some people. would
have no weight with others. He had
been removed as administrator of his
fathers estate, and was threatened
by his successor with a suit at law to re
cover a large defalcation that had
been ascertained. Then numerous
forgeries of the name of his brother to !
notes were giving him trou- |
BILE. and prosecution was threatened. |
Melissa was urging her husband to |
force a settlement of the notes to which |
the name of her husband had been /
forged by prisoner, and the latter was
nsolvent, and unable to Day those
notes. The note he had given DIR.
and to which he had forged
The name OF the surety, he denied the
existence of, claiming that NO such
lote could he found, but it did turn up
n the hands of Mr.. Nelson, admins
rator of DIR. Williams estate, and then
,e admitted the forgery both to his
brother and Mr.. Nelson.
Defendant being insolvent, and un
'ble to take up his forged paper, he
vas in extreme jeopardy of criminal
that might be commenced
It any moment. He was not the own
II of any property from which he could
money to redeem his forged
,aper. What he had was altogether
unavailable as basis upon which to
aise money, and having been removed
ls administrator of bis fathers estate,
lie could hope for nothing from the
lse of the unsquandered resources il
hat direction. Atthe commencement
# this suit, plaintiff swore that he was
lot able to raise 5000 for payment of
attorneys fees. This motive to retain
haract=r by an effort to get rid of
riminal prosecutions for his forgeries,
vas the most powerful that could ami |
nate man. Counsel maintained that
nen do not suddenly fall; it was not a
udden fall, but a sudden discovery.
rue, his general reputation, as far as /:
iewed from the outside world, down
o within couple of years, had been !
ood; but as in thousands of other
ases that have appeared upon crimi-
al calenders, that might be cited, I
here have been innumerable instances
f men having passed many years and
TODD blamtless of wrong in the eyes
their fellow citizens, and suddenly
ppeared upon the arena as criminals
f the deepest dye
It was proves, firstly, by evidence II
efore you, and the fact established a
eyond any reasonable doubt that the g
riso Ier had possessed himself of the Q
leans of poisoning, and secondly, that
e not only had the opportunity, but q
lat he made it
After occupying the morning session q
y his argument, court took a recess,
nd on re assembling, counsel contin- u
I'd.
He claimed that the conduct of pris- o
ler subsequent to the poisoning, as ci
proof of guilt. when con- a.
ected with the whole chain. His acts n
nd statements could not be reconciled Z
ith the assumption that he was an q
nocent man. Counsel for defense 81
aintained that these acts and sayings
prise ner were not good circLmstan &C
al evidences; but Mr.. Dougherty ca
ould undertake tosay that their view p
as erroneous We find defendant in a.
urgeon's Office, place be was not in ii
e habit of visiting, and in distant h
lrt of the town from where he re g
ed, and knowing that DIR. Sturgeon al
as the family physician of his brother, ly
Was somewhat singular that he hap
med there. Then, on Stumm arrIv al
o. and summonino rhe doctor and CT