Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-17

by the jury in connection with all the other facts and circumstances in the case, to deter mine whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged or not
 The next question properly in order in the consideration of the case is, was the accused in situation to commit the crime. h cases of circumstantial evidence this question is al-- ways an important one. Whoever committed this murder necessarily was in situation to commit it-must have been where he could commit it. The public prosecutor strenuous, ly insists that the accused was in such situa- ton. He says he was at his house at o'clock on that fatal afternoon, in the vicinity of the
 murder that he was absent from his house from that hour till o'clock that afternoon and that, however it may be. the accused was at his wood lot part of the time, still he. had
 time enough to go to the scene of the murder,
 perform the deed and be at his house again at o'clock. The accused says he was at his wood lot from quarter past 2 o'clock till quarter past o'clock, throwing his
 wood into heaps. In all cases of aIibi
 time and distance are all important. An alibi,
 if it amounts to anything, is conclusive evil
 dence, for it shows that it was impossible for the accused to have committed the crime. You
 remember the evidence on this subject. The
 time when the accused left his home on that
 afternoon is all important on this question, for
 the theory of the State is that the murder was
 committed soon after o'clock that afternoon.
 The accused relies upon his own testimony
 and that of his wife to prove that he left home
 at about @ quarter past 8 o'clock. There
 seems to be no other evidence in the case that
 he left at that time. These witnesses do not
 pretend that they noted the time; they judge
 of it by what they did after dinner, and esti-
 mate the time spent in performing those trans
 actions, and they then add that time to the
 time when he got home from MiddIetown, and
 thus they judge of the time when he left
 home that fatal afternoon. In consid sring
 this question the State calls upon you to re-
 member the condition of these witnesses in
 the case-their interest in the result of the
 trial.
 The public prosecutor further claims that
 there is no evidence in the case but that of
 the accused himself, that he was at his wood
 lot all that afternoon; that he had an album
 dant time to do all that was done there the
 next morning, when he went early to the wood
 lot with his team and drew three horse loads
 of wood. The public prosecutor further
 claims that the accused said before the coro-
 ner's jury, on the evening of the murder, that he
 left home right after dinner-about o'clock
 that six of the jurors, whose duty it was to note the evidence given before them, all state
 that such was the evidence in regard to the
 time he left home that very afternoon, when
 the transaction must have been fresh in his memory. The public prosecutor further
 claims that he has shown by the testimony of
 the Rev. MT. Gibbs that soon after the tragedy
 Mrs. Hayden stated to him that she did not
 know the time that her husband left home
 that afternoon that after mentioning quar- ter past l o'clock, half past 1 o'clock, 8
 quarter to o'clock. she finally settled down
 upon half past one o'clock as her estimate of
 the time that he left his house for the wood lot The public prosecutor further claims that
 the wife of the Rev. MT. Gibbs, who was present at the interview, substantiates the tes- timony of her husband. The accused again criticises the testimony of Mir. Gibbs on this subject, and again you will determine what
 allowances, if any, shall be made from his testimony. The accused further claims that the brother of the wife of the accused, who says that he was present at the interview, de- to Mrs. Gibbs, but that she stated that he left home at o'clock. Thus stands the case on the question of alibi for your considera- tion. If there is no virtue in this claim of alibi, then it would seem to follow that the ac- cused was in asituation to commit the crime; and in that state of things the claim on the part of the State is, that no other person or persons tn that vicinity were in like situa- ton, for they were all absent from home at the time of the murder.
 We come now to the remaining evidence in the case on which the public prosecutor re- significantly asks, in the first place, how came ninety grains of oxide of arsenic in the stom- ach of Mary Stannard? She must have re- ceived it in the woods after she had left her home. She must have voluntarily received it, the claim is for there was no appearance of any kind of violence having been used to in duce her to take it that she was girl in health and in no need of medicine so far as physical disease was concerned; that the party who administered it to her must have met her by appointment, for he must not only have had the arsenic, but a vessel of some kindin which
 it is prepared to be administered; that he must have known that she would be there !; that the person must have been one with 1 whom she was well acquainted, and who had her confidence; that she must have taken the arsenic for some purpose other than to produce death that the party who administered it to her deceive her
 as to his purpose that he represented one purpose for her taking it while he had anoth- CT that you can conceive of no inducement that could have been offered to her for taking any medicine on that hill away from her
 home but the one claimed by the State, to that that lnducement must have been pre-
 sented to her by somebody on that hill So it is said by the public prosecutor that the case is limited to some assassin who was anx- ious to administer to her poison under the pretense of administering to her medicine to produce an abortion. The public prosecutor l further claims that the murderer must have been induced to the commission of the crime 1 to protect his reputation for chastity; that he had improper relations with the deceased and
 must have supposed that she was pregnant i; | that the accused, of all others, had such mo- | tive. The public prosecutor further insists
 that the deceased left her home that after | noon, saying she was goin to the Big Rock for | the accused to administer medicine to her for | the purpose of producing an abortion upon her; that she took a napkin with her, which l was found on her person after death; that
 she was found dead, brutally murdered, at | the place where she said she was going to have an abortion produced upon her. The public prosecutor further says that the fact | that the deceased took 8 napkin with her strongly corroborates the testimony of Susan | Hawley that the deceased had no need of 8 napkin at that time on account of her monthly | periods, for she had then fully recovered from l the one she had just previously. Again the prosecutor claims that the arsenic purchased l by the accused at Middletown has not been ac- l counted for that he has attempted to palm of other arsenic, procured afterward and put by some friend in his barn, for the arsenic he got at Middletown, and hence all the expert testimony of Dana, and Brewer, and Wormley, l to show that the Tyler arsenic was of the same kind as that found in the stomach and liver of the deceased, and that it is impossible for the barn arsenic and the arsenic sold to the
 accused to have come from the same quantity of arsenic.
 The accused claims that he has shown by the testimony of MT. Leeds that arsenic of different distinguishing elements may be found in the same quantity or arsenic.
 The prosecutor claims that the testimony
 of Leeds does not explain the difference in l the case; that in large quantities of arsenic there may be some differences, but that there should be in half pound of arsenic just one ounce of arsenic and all the rest of different kind, is absurd; that the ounce in such case would become mixed with the rest.
 The prosecutor further claims that the fact
 that the accused took of the wrapper from
 the barn arsenic, and put the arsenic in box with nothing to indicate what it was, shows that it was not the arsenic he bought at Ty- ler's that it was procured and put there af- terward that you can conceive of no motive why he should take of the wrapper, but the one to conceal where it came from that it
 would be known by the superscription upon the wrapper whether it came from Tyler's or not, and hence the destruction of the wrapper.
 The accused says he took of the wrapper for convenience. 5..
 But it is said by the prosecutor that 1t would take no more time to open the package when he wanted to use it than it did then i;
 that the quantity was too great to use at one time; that he would need the wrapper for the future safety of the public.