The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1881-07-21

III Che case naVlng any bearing on Cne
same.
Secondly, if the deceased died by
opium or morphine poitoning, was
this poison ADMINISTERED to him by the
prisoner? On the part Of the State it is
claimed that the PROOF shows beyond
the existence Of IA reasonable doubt, as
have stated, that the prisoner did adj
minister "r give this poison to his
father. That the proof shows that
about the time of its being admins
tered to the deceased, the defendant,
his son, did Uchase and obtain IN one
of the ap lhecarv I0ps in this city, on
the fifth day of December, 1880, ten
cents worth or en- grains of morphine
saying that it was ordered 10y DR.. John
son to be given his father, awhO was
sick, and that the doctor would divide
it into proper doses; and that on the
9th day Of Dtce'nter he purchased five
more grains Of morphine tn he given
his father, as ordered by Doctor John
son; tat from the 5,h day Of Deem
Der to the 2lth he was about the house
Of the deceased, PREPARED his food from
time to time, his ten and beef tea, and
had every opportunity TO give him this
morphine, that he was with him alone
the night before and the morning when
he was first found in stupOr and deep
cons tose sleep; and that the defendant
st" ID tn witnesses, on the day of his
death, his father was now better; he
had given him some beef tea, and he
would now sleep, ana on the day be-
fore, FRIDAY, when the deceased was
comparatively well, he said TO another
witness, he forced his father, with his
KIN g Oh his breast, to swallow beef tea
which he podred into him; that
no one else administered or gave
or could have given any opium or
morphine tp the deceased, and finally,
that on the ashes of the cook stove,
where the prisoner prepared tea and
beef tea tor his father, paper, such as
that in which the apOtneCary had en-
closed the morphine poison he had so
obtained for his father, with the print
ed card of the apothecary printed there
on, was found AT the time. That, also
all the other circumstances in the case
point TO the prlsOneras the person who
administered this morphine poison.
The defendant on his part denies that
the facts proven suffice to establish be-
yOnd reasonable doubt that it was the
defendant that administered thisEpois-
on. Thejury will determine this ques-
ton by carefully considering and weigh
ing all the facts and circumstances in
the case, developed by the proofs hay-
ing any bearing on the question, at the
same time bearing In mind, 3that in
cases of poisoning it is extremely rare
that any direct evidence is attainable
to prove the giving of poison, and that
generally it can be proven only by Cir
cumstantial evidence, in the manner, it
is claimed on behalf Of the State, 1t has
proved it in the present case. Y5g;aP
Should the jury find that the deceased
came to his death by means Of poison
given to him by the prisoner, the only
remaining inquiry will be this;
Did the prisoner by obtaining and
giving the poison to the deceased pur-
poSe5y kill HIM? Did he give it to him
with intent to kill him?
The solution of this important ques-
tion evidently opens a wide field for
inquiry, If he gave the poison to the
deceased, did he give it to him inten-
tionally or by mistake? Did he give it
to him knowing it to be a poison, or
through ignorance Of its fatal qualities,
or for puI pose other than that Of de-
stroying life? Or, was it given with
intent, or for the purpose Of killing ?
The determination of this most impor-
tant question, it is evident, requires
the consideration of the whole case as
presented by the evidence. Ordinarily
the intention or purpose to kill is to be
gathered by the jury from the means
used which have caused the death and
the manner Of using the same. Thus if
an instrument be used Of a dangerous
character, the use Of which is followed
by death ordinarily, such as dagge or
pistol; and such instrument be used to
inAict wound upon vital part!of the
victims body, and death result from
such wound, the jury may well find
from such circumstances, that theIparty
50 causing death, did purpose or intend
to kill. AS was said by one Of our most
illustrious Judges of the Supreme
Court, on the trial of a murder case:
"The purpose or intent to kill in gen
eral is proved by circumstances; by
what the party does; the manner of in
flicting the wounds; the instrument
used and its tendency to destroy life; if
palpably calculated to take life" A
jury may well presume and find from
such circumstances that that the party
intended or purposed to kill This in
ference is drawn on the natural and
reasonable ground that every accounta-
blehuman being is presumed and bound
to know the natural consequences
of his own voluntary acts. Hence
if a man know certain substance to
be adeadly poison, naturally fatal to
life, and administers or gives the same
to another and he dies therefrom, the
inference is reasonable and natural, that
he purposed or intended therebySto kill
him, The purpose may also be gath
cred from the acts and declarations of