The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-01-27
PRICE TWO CENTS.
MRS. KATE COBB OF NORWICH
HER LdHrERS SAY mar SHE SHOULD
NAVE 4 NEW TIiIIL
Avcroents that Errors were Committed In
Admitting and Excluding EVIdence-IIttie
Adele-The Judges Chnrno-Two Jurors

A Avcrments that Errors were Committed q.
Admitting ind Ex cludinE EvIdence-IIttie
Adele-The JudGe's Chnrac-Two Jurors.
NORWICH, Conn, Jan. 2G.-The motion for
new trial in tho cns0 OF the State agt Knto
NJ. Cobb was nlod with the Clerk Of the Superior
Court on Saturday. and turned over by him 10
Chief Justice John ID. Park. 1t is n voluminous
document. covering several pagcs Of foplscap.
and Judge Park said to a reporter that II would
have to DO romodellcd and corrected before IL
could be considered by him and the other
Judges Tho petition sets forth in tho first
place objections TO tho ruling of tho Court In re-
JectnR the testimony Of Mr.. Floyd II. Crane. to
the efToct thnt Mr. Cobb told him at ono timo
that ho wns in the habit OF taking arsenic pow
dcrs. This testimony was ruled out by Judges
Park and Culver on the ground that a nero
naked declaration Is not admissible evidence.
The petition also complained Of tho rul,H
that excluded the testimony of witnesses to 10
effect that Mrs. Cobb was in the habit OF OK
changing poems and bits Of poetry with her
lady friends. tending to corrobornte her story
that she eent certain pocticul pieces to Mrs.
Bishop II also urges that Adele W. Cobb was
not a competent witness. on the ground that
she did not undoratand the nature OF an oath.
The claim is made that States Attorney Wal-
ler. when no asked Mrs. Waterman certain
questions. made her his witness. and could not.
therefore. GO on TO try aud impearh her testi-
mony by the introduction Of tho little girl On
this ground II was urged that Adele should not
have been allowed to testify
Again. tho petition AYERS that the defendant
introduced evidence to show that Mr. Cobb WAS
IN the habit Of calling his wife " Pet" and tho
State was allowed to present witnesses showing
that they had never heard such term of en-
daarmcnt used between them. The objection is
on the ground that 1t was irrelevant and Im-
proper. because tho defence had never claimed
that thcse parties had ever heard Cobb call his
wife Pet" Further. the petition complains OF
the Court In that the word reasonable" WAS
inserted by the Judge In his charge before the
word :. hypothesis, on request by the defence,
Again the paper alleges that the Judge should
have charged the jury that II It was shown that
Mr.. Cobb was in the habit OF taking arsenic and
his wife was in the habit OF adm nistering IT, and
the Jury we're left in doubt whether he had been
killed by the poison self adm nistcred or by that
given by his wife. q verdict OF acquittnl should
be rendered. Judge Park says positively thai
no such request was made to him.
The paper complains Q! the alleged miscon'
duct Of two jurymen. First that Charles Il.
ChipmRn conversod with A. II. Allen regarding
the trial before verdict was rendered. fact
that was not known to the defendants before
tho verdict; second. that Christopher W. Gnllup
expressed an opinion on the case before he had
boen impanelled