St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-02-26
In the Sensational Criminal
Charge Against DR.. 7.
j. Peapce.
Damaging Testimony Intro
ducing the Victims Ante
Mortem Words.
Technical Characterization
as to the Cause Of Blood
Poison.
The Court Tersely Denies the
Defendants Motion to
Dismiss.

Rapid progress was made yesterday
in the trial of DR.. Thomas j. Pearee, in
dicted for homicide for an alleged abor-
ton on Mrs. Helen Clayton, who died
within a week after the alleged Grim
inaI operation. The determination of
the court to keep the jury together dur
ing the trial of the case also Influenced
him to hold night session, so as to get
| through with the trial as rapidly as
practicable. 1t has been long time
since the courts in Ramsey county have
kept the jury together during the inter
missions of court before the evidence
has been completed. and it was sur
prise that such course was pursued IN
this case. 1t has been intimated that
the court took this course at the request
of interested parties, and founded upon
rumors that apparently made such
course desirable.
The morning session yesterday was
taken up with rigid cross-eXamination
of Dr.. Davis, which brought out tittle
that was not embraced in the eXamiIa-
ton in chief.
The afternoon was largely taken up
with the testimony of DR.. Park Richie,
a gentleman who stands very high
throughout the country in his profess
sion. The evidence of DR.. Richie was
principally of technical character. but
he also testified as to the facts relating
TO the death of Mrs. Clayton. He had
called on her at the request of DR.. Davis
OIL the Sunday
Before Her Death.
and was present at the post-mortem ex-
animation. On crosS-eXamination DIR.
Richie made the statement that so far
as the facts show there was criminal
operation performed, and that blood
poisoning resulted from that operation.
He admitted that the blood poisoning
might have resulted from other causes
than the criminal operation complained
of. He was asked If there are not cases
where such operation is necessary and
answered in the negative. This state
ment was poser to counsel for the de-
Tense, as much so as was the answer to
the next question, which was Of the
tenor that there is no way for pilysi-
clan to tell when such an operation is
necessary, and that nature will accom-
plish all that can be attained by such
operation.
An attempt was made to confuse the
doctor with statements Of parts of his
evidence before the municipal court.
but he said he did not remember the
exact form of questions asked there, but
that he was ready to answer questions
at the present time. He admitted that
it might be possible for the blood
poisoning to have resulted from drug
taken a few days before the alleged
operation was performed. In reply to
a rather indefinite hypothetical ques
ton Dr. Richie said: 81 can't answer
that question intelligently: it is too
speculative"
Mr.. Brown remarked, "All opinions
Of physicians are speculative" and DR..
Richie responded with smile and a
nod of the head, "'Fhank YOU"
In response to question by the
county attorney, Dr.. Ritchie said the
facts, as related by other witnesses and
observed by him. did not show that it
was necessary to perform the operation
on Mrs. Clayton. He also replied to a
question put by Mr.. Brown that instru
lnents are not used with good results in
obstetrics. During searching eXami-
nation on the cause OF blood poisoning,
the doctor said it is caused by germ
being introduced into the system by
the breaking of the skin OF the coating
| OF the internal organization, and that
very few physicians i'll the world know
| Just what the operations of these germs
are on the blood.
In response to question by the cOun-
ty attorney DR.. Richie said it was not
proper to use the catheter alleged to
nv hp no,
delivery should not be done surgically,
| but nature should be left to assert
| itself.
Ante-MOrtem Statement.
Mrs. Sophia Wrede, sister of Mrs.
| Clayton, who resides at Milwaukee,
testified that she came to st. Paul the
day before Mrs. Clayton died and re-
manned with her while she lived. Mrs.
| Clayton asked about her father and
mother, and, taking hold of Mrs.
Wrede's hand, said: II feel that i am
going to die. He has finished me. [
| am afraid he has killed me-" Mrs.
| Wrede asked her about the operation,
and Mrs. Clayton told about it and said
| DR.. Pearce had performed a criminal
action after promising her faithfully
| that there was no danger and assured
her that no harm would follow. Ii she
| had known the consequences she would
| never have consented. She said it was
not the fault of her husband. He had
asked that it should not be done. He was
| kind to her, and at last consented after
the doctor said no harm would come.
The motion to strike out the ante
norton statement was denied by Judge
| Kelly. The testimony of Mrs. Wrede
| was clear as to an ante-mortem state
ment of criminal operation, and its re-
cital created a profound impression.
S. Bergman testified to knowing DR..
| Pearce and to the location Of his office.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
At the opening of the evening session
| there were but few spectators. The
| jurymen were in their seats promptly
| at Z O'Clock. G. p. Brown, OF counsel
| for the defense, Immediately addressed
the court on a motion to dismiss the
case from the further consideration of
the Jury, and quoted from number of
legal authorities. The several points
OH which the motion to dismiss was
based are as follows:
l. That there is no evidence sufficient
for conviction.
2. That there is no corroborative evil
dence as to commission of the otfenSe
|
required by Law.
s. That'there is no evidence to show
that the operation was not necessary to
preserve the life of the deceased.
q. That there is no evidence to show
that death was cauSed3y the operation
alleged i'll the Indictment.
5. That there is no evidence to show
that the operation was done with the
intent to commit abortion.
! 6. That there is an entire absence of
testimony to sustain the material allega-
tons of the indictment.
Mr.. Brown spoke for an hour in sup
port of his motion, and at times in
dulged in pathos to enforce the gravity
of the situation.
The county attorney responded briefly
to the argument on the motion TO dis
miss.
Judge Kelly remarked tersely: 1.-The
motion OF the defendant to dismiss this
case is denied"
Mr.. McCafferty asked the stenog.