Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-09-18
been professional prudence for the prisoners

counsel to call II out IN cross examination.
The new statement is of vastly more signi
ficance than at first appears. Its full fore,
can only be seen as part of the whole evi
dence in the case. 1t throws a food of ligh,
upon the whole tragedy. 1t explains wha
without it is incompre hensible. 1t reconcile.
sbsurdities and makes irrecoucilable fact,
consistent with each other. Ii explains why
man should call so openly in the presence
of people for poison TO be administered to a
person. 1t explains the fiippant remark of
the druggist when asked how much a man
could take of strychnine, that "he wouldn't
want more than as much as dose of EPSON
salts" II explains the remark of the retir-
ing strychnine seeker as testified by both
these witnesses-'I guess the old man will
be surprised when he gets that DOSE and it
explains what otherwise is unaccountable
why neither McManus nor Carver follow ed the
man nor warned other druggists nor notified
MIR. c. { Besl of his danger, and why above
all other ysteries of the case Mr.. Carver
the coroner, did not remember the incident,
two weeks afterwards when holding a weeks
inquest over the body of the man 10 whom
the strychnine was TO be administered. and
who died of strychnine poison, and il ex-
plains how it happened that just about as
much s,rychnine, according TO the chemist.
was in the two bottles, as would be equal in
quantity TO adose of epson salts.
1t was because the person who called for
the strychnine had said he wanted something
to make the old man sick--who was drinking
hard. No thought nor suspicion of a muir
derous intent remained in the minds of
these men. They treated it as an insigniti-
cant AFT iir.
As the evidence at the trial left il, the
prisoner at the bar, bent on murder, with
cap drawn over his face and a muffier for
concealment, called for strychnine, spoke of
his victim in low tone TO the druggist and of
the motive which was actuating him to muir
der his father he had 'been playing tricks
on us boys" Grossly inadequate as this
motive was, taken in connection with other
remarks and acts, it had its weight with the
jury.
As the new evidence would have it, the
person calling for the strychnine had no muir
derous intention but then and there mega
tived any such idea. He was after some
thing TO sicken a man from drink, who was
fast drinking himself to poverty, disgrace or
death.
For the purposes of this motion It makes
little difference perhaps who the person was
that called for the strychuine. These wit
nesses both testified positively that it was
this prisoner: they will continue TO so tes-
iify. The prisoner still denies it. Ii would
doubtless have made his motion more effect
i've. and he certainly would have had moth
ing to lose by admitting it, and possibly
much to gain. But he is immovable in this
that these witnesses are mistaken in their
identity of the individual; yet the jury
were told that it was he and the whole story
of his call at the druggists AS far as 1t WAS
told pointed to him as murderer. Can
there be any doubt that if the design of the
call for strychuine, the wish to procure it to
put in whskey to make sick and not to kill
the person for whom it was intended, taken
together with Ill the other circumstances of
this mysterious case, had been disclosed as il
is now sclo>ed by this new evidence, can
there be any doubt that verdict of lees
would have been the result? The
jury must have been looking, as the whole
public were, for some explanation of so
singular killing of MIR. Beal No adequate
motive had been shown; the poison was pu,
where others were as likely TO get it as he,
W who in fact, did get it. Here is the full and com
plete explanation, If the jury still shall be-
lieve that it was the prisoner who did II,
here is the key to his motives Not murder.
but to sicken him from drink. Ii was doubt
less criminal carele -sness, it may be man
slaughter, but it relieves the boy from the
terrible charge of parricide, and the mother
and sister from the grievous burden they are
bearing under the verdict
This is not case where the evidence was
overwhelmingly strong as to the guilt of the
prisoner. 1t is very obvious that the verdict
is not supported by strong public opinion.
Even the distinguished Attorney General
expressed doubt 10 his brethren of the bar
as to the guilt of the prisoner not long before
the close of the trial.
This new evidence closes up another point
in the case. The strychnine was found in
two bottles-one empty and the other full
There must have been, according to the evil
dence, at least 30 grains in all. This WAS in
quantity as much as the "dose of salts"
spoken of by the druggitt Why was it in
two bottles? May not the person who put ii
there have thought that he had safely diluted
the dose which would kill-which he had
been told would be equal in quantity to
dose of salts-may he not have thought he
had diluted this quantity sufficiently when he
had mixed it with two bottles of whiskey in
stead of giving it in one dose? Did he not
believe that he had diluted it below the kill
ing strength although it might retain sick
ening power? In short, is not this fact that
strychnine was being sought by somebody
no matter by whon-for the purpose of
making the old man sick" n solution of all
the mystery that surrounds this case?
We ask therefore, in behalf of the pris-
er, inasmuch the door of pardon is prac-
tically shut to him under the law as it now
stands, that his case may be again submitted
to jury that this new and important circum-
stance may be submitted in his behalf.
Without it there must ever remain much
doubt as to the boys guilt of the charge of
wilful murder.
The Attorney General replied briefly, con-
tending that the intent made no difference as
death resulted. If man shoots at another
intending to MAIN him but in fact kills him
is it not MURDER
Judge Hall replied that the case was not
parallel. In the case Of the shooting every
man is supposed 10 know what may be the
effect of the bullet, in the case at the bar
the evidence shows that whoever called for
this strychnine did not know its effect and in
quired of the druggist, and it is evident
supposed it had been sufficiently diluted
when the amount which the druggist had
stated would kill man, had been diluted in
two bottles of whiskey.
Judge Whitehouse stated that he would
give the case the careful consideration it,
great importance demanded.