The Middleburgh post. [volume] (Middleburgh, Snyder Co., Pa.) 1883-1916, 1893-02-09
RI. BEATTY FOUND GUILTY
A SPEEDY VERDICT OWEN.
The Jury Takes But Nine Minutes TO
Find Him Guilty of Poisoning.
Judge Stoves Charge
to tae Jury.

verdict OF guilty as indicted was rem.
dered at Pittsbure In the case Of II, j.
Beatty, charged with poisoning the non
union workmen at Homestead. The jury
was out very short time. 1t was nine
minutes from the time they entered their
room until they reported their verdict ready
This is accounted for principally. by the
fact that the evidence was all in and the ad.
dresses were made the day before, so thai
the jurors had all night TO think about their
verdict.
1be effect upon Beatty was pitiful TO see
lie startled as though he had received an
electric shock. then his lower jaw dropped
and his muscles relaxed His arms fell 10
his side and he showed plainly that he had
been dealt a terrible blow. There was per
feet silence. all eyes were turned on him. At
asllentlnod from Judge Stowe h's keeper tap.
ped him on the shoulder and beckoned him
to follow. Beatty started as the hand
touched him lie uttered heavy sigh and
slowly followed his leader to his cell.
The attorneys for the Commonwealth say
that for the counts on which Beatty was
found guilty II s legal for the Court 10 sen.
ience him to % years in the reniientiatv.
ATTORNEY Bremen was asked what the de.
fense would do now. and replied that moth.
ing had been dc, ided upon
Judge Stowe In his charge said: You will
see that there are two dis'in aud separate
charges made in different ways in regard to
means and result one of attempting To mur.
der and njure CIR filth the other of attempt.
ing To murder aud actual injury to others
than Griffith unknown to the grand Jury.
Upon their ind!G.m' mt II the jury believe
TIE poison was Tie means used, and the dc.
fendcnt is guilty Of using IL with intoLt 10
injure and siCken any person comprehend.
ed within the indictment, that is to say w.
f. Griffiths or others then unknown to the
grand Jury, then your verdict must I've
guilty in that charge alleging the use Of
olson and II will be unnecessary to direct
your attention to the other counts merely
alleging the intent without reference to the
means used to commit murder, do great
bodily harm TO W l. Griihths and Others,
for the re ison that the charge of poisoning
includes the other charges. And IL the 1e-
fendant IL guilty Of the former, IL ncce.sar-
lily involves the latter. The whole evidence
seems 20 me TO point to the Use OF poison IL
anything was used TO sicken the workmen
by the defendent and II that was not used
think the jury should acquit. But " poison
was used. as ALLEGED by the common wealth.
and Grfiiths was injured by taking 1t. IN
der the circumstances lie states, whoever
was Intentionally instrumental in admins
,ering or having administered 10 him was
guilty of the felony charged in the indct.
ment, legally involving the intent to muir
der, although such persons may not have
actually intended Ia iniure Grthths in par.
ticular nor to take his life. When one ad-
ministers poison with In ent to injure and
sicken another, and such person dies from
the effect of the injury 1t IL murder, at least
of the second degree, under our statue, al
though IL may be apparent that his intent
was actually not to take life.
So il is when one person prepares to kill
or iniure another and in pursuance OF such
original design. accidentally given to the
wrong person. then he must inquire into
what is meant by poison under the statute.
The satisfactory definition find Is "a sub
stance thaSas an inherent deletericus
property which renders II when taken into
The system inf = =, =, pses capable of destroy
ing iiie or de e,.nCst. ihe,ilfs; ell ,se BODY
when taken in small Hoses
"The testimony in this case, so far as e
| tends TO show that any substance was used
| TO sicken and injure the parties TO whom 1t
was administered points so strongly TO poi
| soning Of some kind, that IL seems To me MS
before stated that the jury will probably
have no trouble in concluding from the eyi'
| dence that IL any deeterious substance by
| the authority or connivance OF defendant
| that thing was poisonous character IN the
proper and legal sense OF the term POISON,
'''rhe Jury will readily remember the evi.
| dence which tends TO show the character OF
| the powders claimed to have been used
without reference TO IL by me-"
Judge Stowe then went over in detail the
meaning OF all the. counts anu Instructed tne
| Jury how to convict on certain counts, II
| they did not wish to convict on oil, He
| also reviewed in detail the evidence OF Gal
lagher and David,on. showing in what
| points they were corroborated. In showing
| this the court says:
We may say here both Dempsey and Beat.
| ly corroborate Gallagher in respect TO his
| ,Beattys) employment to secure persons,
| among them Gallagher. TO go to the mill Tor
| purposes other than cooks were ordinarily
| EMPLOYED for by the managers Of the works
but here is where the difference arises,
| where the guilt or innocence of Beatty un.
| der this indictment depends Whether yoG
| give credit TO the story of Gallagher and
| Davidson as TO his connection with the q.
| lenses alleged TO have been committed by
putting these powdt rs to be used at the mill.
| The evidence OF Beatty and Dempsey, while
corroborating Gallagher thus tar differs
radically as To what the purpose was IL, as
assigned by Dempsey, 1t was simply to plav
| the spy npon the works and to lind out for
his own purpose what was going on there,
whatever we may think of such business, IL
| certainly will not Justify the conviction OF
Beatty, even il Gallagher, as he himself
/ says, administered some injurious substance
| in the food in the mill. But this question
must be determined by all the evidence in
| the case"
Continuing the Judge said "lf Gala.
| gher's story Is cOrToboIat in any material
| respect, such as induces you to rely upon
| and give il credit, you should act upon il ac-
| cordingly. Indeed II II comes in such
| shape as carries conviction to your minds.
beyond n reasonable doubt. you shonld not
discard IL simply because It is the testimony
OF an accomplice, but give II proper consid-
1 A. Z l..N