The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-10

gerel to his chair at the table Here Mrs. Cobb was
affected To tears. checked her testimony and drank
resumed.l He did not to be able to see us; he
sat down in his chair and ne called for his medicine
q prescription by DIR. Paddock: / went to the back
room after it, and returning he complained of faint
aud asked for brandy; administered IT, and ms
ianness CONTINUING ne asked me :" rup nls hanus
O'Clock; while i was rubbing MS hands No
Looked up :. me and said, .,. po ne s,i 20
"well. mother. l think have got shock that
means something" The witness was greatly
affected while giving this testimony. and frequently
her utterances broken by sobs. Among his
other remedies. my husband had often used gal
owned by Mr.. Church the morning Of his
death.
Bishop sometimes brought liquors TO the house,
and on the occasion of my husbands April sickness
Bishop obtained some brandy and whiskey for him
and he took it, else drank any of it; again
in May he brought some whiskey asked him TO
get me some and he inquired who Is going to take
ity' my husband nsed part of it, Bishop brought
canned tomatoes from the grocery and after eating
them he seized with vomiting; my husband had
and other papers; day he brought home another
box and taking these papers ami putting them in it,
put the box upper shelf, and told me not to
tonch it.; late in APRIL when was cleaning house,
this box knocked over and among the things
what, ~. nar W" ssnston n the court roo this
package had been opened and some of it spilled on
the floor while restoring the papers to the box my
husband entered and sad--
AN oBJEcIIoN TO coBBs DECLARATION
The State objected this declaration by Mr.. Cobb
not III connection with the complaint he was suffer-
ing from. His ADMISSIONS not admissible in this
case, as he is not here to deny it. and be
brought TO deny it.
Colonel Wait argued at length on the admssibility
of this evidence The State had claimed arsenical
poisoning aud the defence has a right to show tho
inding Of this white powder in Cobb's private box
and what he said about it. We show that lie
and we wish particularly to snow what he said re.
garding these powders when his wife accidentally
State Attorney Waller argued that this declaration
one not sworn to and of party not known i'll
the and who is beyond the reach of cross-exami
Colonel Wait said that Cobb destroyed the powder
at the time and his explanation accompanying the act
State Attorney Waller offered. in support of his
objection the ruling of Judge Sanford i'll the murder
case OF the State VS.. Dodge Goth Conn, p. 1881.
The Court remarked that the this point
clear. Naked declarations by party out of court.
ton in explanation of an act accompany the tes-
tmony as to the act. In this particular case. in
which an objection is raised IL Cobb was about to
destroy the powders, what he said in explaining his
action may be admitted in evidence.
ARSENIC.
The counsel for the defence then changed his form
of interroga.ory, and Mrs. Cobb. continuing sajd:
My husband said. This is poison. and ought to be
the box; he then threw the package in the stove.
Did you ever have conversation with Mrs:
Waterman and your husband to the leanness Of
members Of the family?
Objected to and ruled out
huye talked ws my Husband ls about his
leanness, and at one time he told me that he
going to get knsw %, him to have boy OF arsenic
poison" he replied. Poison is good for some peo-
Pile il taken IN small doses;,' then looking at the
white. and arsenic is green for have always heard
of arsenic green as coor he replied, mo. arsenic
from whom got the powders" often him
take the powders; he had kept the powders in the
box until the time it tipped then he carried
them on his person. this was during April
THE HAND MIRROR GIFT.
About the time OF my husbands visit to Troy
Bishop came to the house for orders one morning,
and asked him to get me hand mirror; he brought
it the next day my husband knew OF it subsequently
present until after my husband paid the grocery bill
at the store where Bishop worked. and found that
the mirror was not charged to me; asked Bishop
about it, and he said he presented it to las token
OF friendship and that his motives were pure
wrote any note to Bishop about the matter
INNOCENT EXCURSIONS.
As to the Fourth Of July excursion that got up
by my husband, and Bishops statement that
planned it with him lie; the sailboat
sion in August was arranged by my husband and Mr.
planning it was utterly false: the Martha's Vine
yard excursion had been contemplated by my hus-
o.1d NO sher nn
been no opportunity. for l was with some OF the
ladies' all the tine
The gold pencil which Bishop says he gave mo ]
obtained in July, 1877, when on my way to Troy.
claim my baggage picked up piece of yellow pa
per. in which this pencil was wrapped; when Iwrofe
IL
produce tho letter, but produce evidence that
/ wrote such letter; while in Troy corrcsponded
with Mrs. Bishop and sent her some pieces of poetry;
sent Bishop watch charm while in Troy; i was
philopcna present. and the promise to send it was
made in the presence Of my husband and Mrs Bishop;
it simple thing and inexpensive; on my
return in September 1877. and when on the way to
church with my husband met Bishop and his wife,
this was the first meeting after my return; during
that fall exchanged many visits-that is, the
bishops and ny family; we also went to Mr.. Charles
Tracys. and learned to play one game; this was
the evening OF the 10th day July. 1877 "a smile
the at the particularly of this statement
as. TO the da.e) it was casino.
Bishop had testified that it was auction pitch and
that she was not good player.
NEVER RIssEp HER; NO, NEVER.
Bishop never kissed me- he testified; gave him
the silk handkerchief that has been produced in
evidence il was one that was sent me from Sydney.
Australia, and one Sunday evening on my way to
church it taken from my muff by Bishop un-
known to me; later that evening he met and said.
'If you want a silk handkerchief bad to steal
one will buy you one;" some time later. whom in
bought the handkerchief with her knowledge and
gave IL to Bishop afterward in my mothers house
to was ordered by and supposed it had been paid
for until heard in court the other day that it had
BIsHor's NIGHT VISITS TO Mss. COBB.
During the fall and winter Of 1877 Bishop came to
the house several evenings and remained some time;
he expecting to meet his wife, she was fro
quent visitor and he in the habit Of meeting her
there; that he made private calls is falsc also tho
statement that converscd seriously with him about
divorce October of that year; there had been
talk in joking way both by Mrs. Bishop and
and 10 grew out of the fact that husband and Mr..
Bishop both objected to ridicued belonging to
the Order OF Good Tcmplars. I remember say
ing that perhaps she could get o divorce,
but could not. for had no ground.
GENERAL DENIAL.
What have you to say regarding Bishops testi-
mony duplicating you in the poisoning OF his wife
and your husband, and, in fact. all HIS statements
about tho uso of poisons by YOURSELF
Mrs.. Cobb with great carncstness}-They are all
utterly false; have never ordered bought received
or administered any poison. or had anything to do
with such things.
Continuing. the witness said:-Bishop's statements
that he planned with the i'll treatment of his wife
Ia also false; gave Bishop match safe and chine
cup ard saucer, marked Pet they were Christmas
presents. and his wife made presents TO him at ting
Same time; never had any morphine pills in mI
possession; in January, 1875 there was conver
saticn at my mpthers about some being poisoned