The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-08-21
ABDETF'S GREAT CHARGE
Pronounced One of the Most
Instructive Ever De-
livered to a Jury.
CLEAR EXPOSITION OF THE Law.
Every Feature of the Shann Case
Profoundly Considered
Charges and Refnsals
to Charge.
Special to The Jersey citv Neps.

ol6 l6uture OF Ine Snanu trlal was the
charge TO che jury, Saturday of Justice
Abbett. It has been the topic ofsscon-
versation and has been freely discussed,
especially among the members OF the bar.
His charge to the jury occupied an hour.
and the first part of it was a disposition
of the twenty one requests that the de-
fence had made for special charge to tue
jury. Out of these twenty one points he
charged as directed for eleven aud re-
fused ten He charged, at the request of
the counsel for the defendant, that the
burden OF the proof Is upon the State and
that before a conviction can be had the
jury must be satisfied from the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is gniity in the manner and
form as charged In the Indictment.
The other requests in which he con-
CURED did not differ much from the
original proposition. Those he refused
|. were pertinent. He refused TO charge
lNtbat all the symptoms of the disease In
patients illness taken together are in
consistent with any other disease.
He refused also tn charge that if the
patients last illness was consistent with
any other aliment thai mercurial poison
ing which might hav caused death. the
| jury ehonid bring in q verdict Of &C.
Quiltai, He would nor acquiesce in the
suggestion that II the jury believed the
| p4I ClClhuS uedtu ull&uL uhV0 resulted
from other disease than poison. The rest
of the requests were OF this tenor aud he
| refused them.
NO SYMPATHY OR PREJUDICE.
Continuing, Justice Albeit said:-''In
considering this case, gentlemen of the
jury. as | nave stated. you are to eliminate
from your mind every feeling of sy
for the defendant or prejudice against
her, ii a exists. You are not. 10 the
consideration of whether she is guilty or
not, to take into account the h~einousuess
of The crime; the question is guilt or
tnnocence. You are not, therefore, TO
allow yourself to be prejudiced By the
fact that it appears to be, If such q crime
was committed, one of the most atrocious
in the annals of this State. The question
ls whether or not 1t was committed by
the defendant. No prejudice. if any
| exists, arising from the character of the
crime or the relations Of the parties.
should be permitted to affect your judg-
meut IN considering the evidence and in
reaching a conclusion upon 1t.
ut Is in evidence in this case-and when
/ speak now OF the evidence, l shall try
SO far as | shall recall iG to you to do it
correctly. II make any mistake in the
statement OF 1t, counsel for the defend
ant may correct me; ii | make any mis-
take. II Is your duty to correct me when
you consider the questions, after you
hnve retired TO deliberate. All questions
Of fact III this case are for you; all de-
auctions from facts found by you. are
for you. The duty of the Court IL to
state to you the law of the case, and You
are TO be controlled by the law as the
Court gives it. Upon the questions of
fact, the duty devolves upon you, and
upon you alone, to decide first what
facts exist, and, second. what conclusions
are reasonable aud proper to De drswu
from them, so far as they affect the
guilt or Innocence of the defendant.
"On the 18th day of April, at twenty
minutes to four O'Clock in the morning,
John f. Sham died. There seems to be
no question in the case o either side
about that. You may assume. there
fore. as a fact the death of John r.
Sham. There seems TO be no question in
the case that he died after an illness be-
ginning possibly as far back as February
%, or perhaps prior to hat time, or that
tlat illness became IS BAT that on the 9th
OF March he took to his bed, from which
he did not arise until he was taken from
1t a corpse. These facts I do not think
are disputed ty the defendant, and they
appear to ne 10 be proved, although it
is n question for you TO say whether
they are fairly established In this
case. Prior to the 9th day of March,
and as tar back as February 20, he
family physician, DR.. Bergen. under
whose ca:s he continued Until he died,
HIS treatment, the medicines he admin
istered, the symptoms which he found,
his conclusions upon them, have all been
testified TO before you, and the criticism
upon his testimony and upon his treat
ment has also been before you on the
part of the defense. They are all
relevant upon the question, as part of the
testimony, which You are to consider rs
TO what caused the death of john F.
Sham, " hetner 1t was the adnlinistra-
l. Han. NJ ta1rArrrfuI nf,fun,, nj ryt ~ -
resulted from disease not occHsioned by
the administration of that poison.
ALL EVIDENCE To BE CONSIDERED.
"He certified that The death OF tho de-
ceased Was occasioDed by gastritis. You
will remember the testimony of Doctor
Phillips. called upon the part or the de-
fehse, who says that, in his judgment.
from the symptoms detailed to him
while he was on the witness stand, he
considers the cause OF death gastritis, but
the question of what caused the gastritis,
whether it was meIcurial poison. whether
1t was any of the diseases, several of
which he mentioned. be said it was
impossible for him t. determine from the
question presented 10 him.
sIu considering this question, however,
all with eases t%est!fying upon the subject.
all their evidence is TO be considered by
YOU, as wilt az those named by the
Court. 1t appears also 10 be fairly well
established by the testimony, although
the question IL for you, that during the
entire period of illness, when be was con-
fined to his bed from March 6, until the,
day of his death, that nearly ali. or the
greater part of the food and medicine
OF the deceasea was administered to him
| by his mother. the defendant. There
were some times, according to some of
| the testimony. when PORTIONS of food anu
medicine were occasionally administered
during the sickness by others, but I
| think IL Is reasonably well established.
although that question Is also for you
thar the greater portion of The food AMI
medicine during this entire time WAS
nc administered by the defendant.
Il think 1t is also reasonably clear from
the testimony. although that as every
| other fact Is for you, that there was Ia
/ the house at the time corrosive subli-
| male taolets which were there for the
purpose CT disinfection, and which con-
tanned mercurta1 poison III quantities.
sufficient To Kill under certain circun-
stances IL administered internally. It is
also in evidence that two policies of in.
surance were taken out upon the life of
the deceased, Que IN November, and the
| other IN December, 1892, the effect OF
which was communicated TO the deceased
by the insnrauce agent. Mr.. Borden.
which WAS that these policies would be
for9his benefit il he lived for the period.
/ think, IL Is twenty years, but for some
lopR period; but in case OF his death dur
Ing uhat1period; but jn cass of his death
during thai period the policies would be
for the benefit Of his mother, d defend
ant In the case.
POLICIES.