New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-12-16

ond witness He declared that he had known many
cases of the mistaken Identification Of bodies lie
knew Of one body. that OF a man who had DIED OF
cerebral hemorrhage, which. within three-quarters
OF an hour after death. had been claimed by each
of three her husband. He knew OF
another identified by woman as her husband,
but upon her return to her home she had FOUND
her husband asleep in bed. He knew OF another
also identified by woman as her husband, but
three months later her husband had turned up
alive He knew OF the body Of boy killed by
street-car which had been identified by woman
as her son. when her husband declared that he was
not their son at all. And he said that 1t was I'M
possible with certainty to identify an unembalmed
body three months after death. DR.. Herrold talked
Familiarity OF dysentery. and In reply to the de-
PENDANTS hypothetical question he said he had no
doubt that dysentery the cause OF death, and he
would not 10 shaken in that opinion by the fact
that chemists claimed to discover antimonial and
arsencal posons N the body nor would their
opinion that the posons had been administered be-
fore death affect his opinion that the real cause of
death was dysentery.
HOW THE CROss-Ex ANIMATION WENT.
Dr. Herrolds cross-examination was interesting.
1t went along about like this:
g. Were you ever the attending physician ,a in
a body three months after death? A. Yes.
.Q.-When was it? Al don't know; some time in
Q.-How long had you attended the patient? A.
o~what did he die of? A.-Pneumonia.
Q..It took him two months to die Of pneumonia!
Q.-Where was he buried? AIN cemetery be-
Q.-What was his name? Al forget.
Q.-Where did he live? Al forget.
Q.-What street? Al forget.
Q.-And yet you attended him for two months?
PS x ySa render o BIZ II. in ni hs ea'e Ayes
9 Mhere % does 1f she @i .e' Al uons know
Q.-Was the bill paid?
Mr. Brooke, does
not always agree with his associates. spoke up
swiftly: mo. no. don't object to that Never
object to a bill being paid There was general
laugh at this and the witness said it was paid
Q.-IIow much was it? Al forget.
Q.-Why was the body exhumed? Al don't
Q.-was poisoning suspected? Al don't remem-
Q-was the object to remove the body to another
the cemetery? The widow notified me that the
U.y,Why? Al don't know.
| Q;--Then what did you go for? Aust out vi
You Just simply wanted to see the he. body
| Ayes; When hear OF a BODY beihg jug up
o-Reas? Now about the case where sr. three zee
| Immediately after death. When was that? Ain
Q.-was the body decomposed? A.-No.
| O-What was its name? Al don't know .
| Q.-Where had its residence been? Al don't
know 49,. ..o.,o,, ,
|
o.-Where did they live? Al don't know.
| THE WITNESS COULD NOT ANSWER.
The judge interrupted. Are we to understand
he asked that this took place within forty-nve
minutes after the mar d'ed?" The witness said
that that was the case. We'll how had these
! three women heard that dead body was lying at
the station house to be identihed?' The witness
said he could not answer that question How had
their suspicious been aroused that 1t might De the
body Of their husband?' The witness did not know,
and the Judge looked exceedingly puzzled; Mr.,
Nicoll went TO the other cases that Dr. Herroiu
nor dates nor residences nor attendant ercum.
stances-nothng but that in each case q claimant ,a,
| had been mistaken lie assured Mr.. Nicoii tnat
! although often mistook their huspahus'
It quite impossible to mistake case OF dysen
! Then the Dstrct-Attorney asked this question:
You say that in the cS 2sa Or SnF the
| cause OF death was dysentery Now II the phy-
month had testified that he believed he was de-
ceiyel In his diagnosis, would that anect you,
II You were a physician in such a case. a case In
which the symptoms were those 1d nI sn
in the organs OF the patients dead body would
,,sry?" DR. Herrold said no.. he should have, no
doubt, and Mr. Nico. with shrug OF the shoulders
Mr. Ramsey. druggist. appeared before the
Jury with pair OF draEs SITS, seaes ana ,b was ne
Which The witness Muller had said was about the
size Of The capsules Of arsenic whGn Meysr hs
,hat 4, held twentysix grains OF arsenic The bear
ng Of this point was upon the testimony OF the ne
| arsenic had been found In Baums body. although
J Il was clearly brought out that this was Only
fraction OF the arsenic that must have been there.
| and that what there may have been the
merest fraction OF what the witness took. all the
rest having been elected The prosecution required
| Mr. Ramsey TO put only two grains OF arsenic IN
| the capsule their point being to show That
the appearance OF the capsule. whether full or
| only partly full. was the Judge Barrett said
that these Illustrations brought nothing before the
| court and were not evidence
THE LAST WITNESS CALLED.
The defendants last witness Professor Witt
! haus the list OF whose distinctions was long and
imposing He had been an expert witness for the
| State In many murder trials. notably In those OF
| Harris and Buchanan, and. ii may not be imper-
tincnt to add though 1t was not put In evidence,
that he and Professor Doremls do not always agree
| Mr.. OSullivan asked DIR. Witthaus II II was pos.
| sibe 10 diferentate between posons administered
| before and after death In case In which the
| examination for them had occurred three months
| subsequently to the burial. The doctor said no,
and entered upon a long and learned dissertation
tempted to discover the distinctions that woud per-
| init them to diferentate, ana now IL happened
for about ten minutes when the District Attorney
| interrupted. II object" he said. ITO the further
nrry G mne she defence Will at once de-
clare purpose TO produce affirmative evidence that
the posons in Brindts body were Injected after
death The evidence now Is that they were adj
| minisered poisons before death and with intent
| 10 kill Not word of proof has been offered to
| contradict that testimony We do not deny any
thing that this witness says about the nconclusiye
nature OF the mere fact that poison is extracted
| from n dead body on the contrary. our own
| witnesses have admitted that 1t was nconclusive.
and that fact goes TO the jury az part or the
ence of poisons In this by affirmative proof
| that the prisoner administered them TO Brandt In
toxic doses Now unless the deendant S an
Nothing at all" said the Court, 80 far as I
In, If ha fact NJ a