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

in some other way.
The defendant on the other hand
claims tNat tue evidence of the medi-
Cal experts, in connection with the
helnlcal anal! sis, and other proof fail
to establish that the deceased was poi
sOned by the defendant, either by arse
mic, or morphine poison, or any other
poison. That the testimony Of
the medical experts is ordinarily un-
safe and IN this case unreliable
because too uncertain and conflicting,
that the chemical analysis was not of
such character as to be relied on. And
that the other testimony in the case
fails to establish the defendants guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
1t is for the jury to determine be-
tween these conflicting claims Of the
parties, by considering and weighing
all the facts and circumstances Of the
case. But to aid you in this determine
tIoD, l deem it my duty to say to you,
that so far as the first, third and fourth
counts in the indictment are concern
ed, it is utterly lmmateTal and unim-
pertant, except SO far as it might serve
to show purpose and that merely incl
dentally, whether the opinion Of the
medical experts so far as arsemcal pOis-
Oning is concerned, was certain or re-
liable or not, whether the chemical an
alysis by Professor Morley was con-
Quoted scientifically or not or in such
manner as that its results could be
deemed reliable and certain, or whether
the facts detailed by the witnesses es-
tablished beyond doubt, that the de-
ceased had been i'll from alsenical
poisoning. All these things might be
important only so far as the charge in
the second count Of the Indictment is
concerned. The counsel for the State
do not however, claim that the proof
shows that the deceased died OF arSen-
ical poisoning; but claim that the proof
shows he died of morphine poisoning,
Hence the inquiry respecting arseni-
cal poisoning is wholly imma-
terial in the case, except SO far as it
may tend to show, whether by
administering morphine to his father
he purposed to kill him, That purpose
may well be shown by other sufficient
testimony.
In this connection l may, however,
state to the jury that the testimony Of
learned and experienced medical ex-
perts in cases Of this kind is entitled
to great respect consideration and
weight, when its results are not in con-
nict with the facts and circumstances
established by the other testimony in
the case. That the science of chemistry
has become with the advancing pro-
gress Of the age, one OF the most exact,
and absolutely reliable of the sciences,
and its results entitled to the greatest
respect and consideration in the courts,
criminal and civil, of our country. OF
the facts established by proper and
intelligent chemical analysis, it may be
said with great confidence that such
facts cannot lie.
wish furthur to state to the jury
that it is not necessary, in order to pro-
nounce upon the guilty or innocence Of
the prisoner on this charge, that the
testimony of the medical experts should
show with certainty beyond reasonable
doubt, that the death Of the deceased
was caused by poison administered to
to him by the prisoner. This may be
shown by other facts and circumstances.
1t is sufficient if the jury are satisfied,
from all the circumstances, and beyond
reasonable doubt, that the death of the
deceased was caused by the poison as
administered to him by the defendant.
The testimony Of the medical experts,
coupled with circumstances showing
that the accused was interested in the
death of the deceased, that he prepared
the poison, and procured and had in
possession such poison; was about the
person of the deceased at the time the
poisoning occurred; that he expected
or predicted the fatal event, with
out apparent reason that the death re-
suited without previous circumstances
of ill-health; that he has endeayOred to
stiae inquiry by precipitately burying
the body and afterward an inspection,
signs agreeing with poison are observed
though such as medical III en- will not
affirm could not have been owing to
any other cause; the accumulatiye
strength of such circumstantial evil
dence, may well be such as to warrant
the conviction of the accused.
In determining the guilt or innocence
of the prisoner, the jury should take
into consideration and weigh in cOnnec-
tion with all the other facts, the proof
offered by the defendant as to his pre-
vious character for peace and quiet.
trust the jury will give the case that
which its great import
ance demands; that they will determine
the case as the proof and the law make
it their duty to determine it without
regard to consequences. If the proof
satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt,
that the defendant has violated the
criminal laws Of the State and COM
m itted the grert chine he stands charg-
ed with, let his guilt be pronounced by
you, and let the violated laws be yindl-
Gated 10y the punishment Of the Grimm
al. This is a duty which no citizen sit
ting on a jury has right to finch
from or to compromise.
On the other hand, if the prisoner is
NOT nrnuan nmilLN | trnSt I'D will be a