Grand Rapids morning telegram., 1884-12-20
THE MILLARD CASE.
YESTERDAYS PROCEEDINGS.
Continued Testimony in Reference TO
Mrs. MiIlard's Death-The Judge
Considering an Objection.

DIR. Duffield was recalled yesterday morn
ing and testified that strychine injected
would be discovered by subsequent analy-
sis. A. z. Halbert testified that he was
positive that it was strychnine which he sold
TO Jeffreys, and produced the bottle out of
which he claimed TO have taken the article
and also the bottle in which he kept arsenic.
Tie prosecution wanted TO introduce the
evidence of Coroner johnson touching
conversation alleged 10 have been heard be-
tween Jeffreys and Millard, which the Court
ruled could not properly be received at this
time.
DIR. Duffield was again called to the stand
and testified that the process used by DIR.
Prescott was not the same as the one used
by himself. Witness was asked what IN his
opinion caused death, whether arsenlcal
poisoning or natural causes. Judge Mars
ton objected to the question, claiming that
there was no evidence aside from the symp-
toms to show that arsenic had been taken into
he system before death.
The Court-To my mind there is evidence
that the patient received arsenic into the
system before death, but this Is an open
question for the jury to determine. There
is no evidence to show that it was given at
any stated time. There is evidence TO show
that arsenic was found III the body after
IL.
il was administered before death.
Judge Marston took an exception to the
remarks of the Court made in the presence
of the jury that there is evidence to show that
arsenic was administered before death.
hypothetical question was asked the doc
tor by Mr.. McGary covering the facts as
sumed by the people and the witness was
again asked what in his opinion caused death
Judge Marston objected, saying that there
was no evidence showing that there was any
arsenic found in the stomach, liver or kid
neys, and nothing to indicate that arsenic
had been taken into the system before death
and that 1t is not proper question for the
witness to give an opinion upon. The OBJ
lection was not sustained, exception noted
and the witness answered, "Should say that
arsenical poisoning caused DEATH"
Cross-examined-In answering the ques-
ton / assumed that arsenic had been found
in the body and that it had been admins
tered before death.
DIR. PRESCOTT RECALLED.
Prof. Prescott again took the stand and
was asked the same question that was asked
DIR. Duffield. He answered that in his opin-
| ion death was caused by arsenical poisoning.
Cross-examined-I assumed in answering
the hypothetical question that arsenic had
been administered before death.
Dr. Gundrum was called and answered the
hypothetical question: 81 should think that
arsenical poisoning caused DEATH"
Cross-examined-It testified at former trial
| that l moved all of the brain and it was a
small one, put it in a jar and it was about
| two-thirds full; the muscle of the leg re-
moved would weigh about pound or pound
and half; have answered the hypothetical
| question assuming that arsenic was admins
| tered before death.
| DIR. Eplay was called and said that at nc
time during deceased's illness did he pre-
| scribe fever medicine.
Cross-examined-Di testify that there
were several days when / do not remember
what did prescribe: have taken what you
might call an active part in this case; com
menced the interest shortly after l had
heard of his having brought ar
senic; was appointed one of the
| the committee to GO to the Prosecuting At
| tcrney and lay the facts before him; when al
! application was made for bail did not cir
culate petition asking the Judge not tc
| allow bail; signed such petition.
Henry ID. Pew-Respondent purchased ar
senic at my drug store during the last sick
ness of his wife; on the 9th or Sth of May.