Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1893-03-19

'In the argument for the motion, the
the defendants counsel contends that
he has established by aflidavits produc-
ed by him in support of the motion, the
fact that the deceased had been addicted
to the use Of morphine for several years
prior to her death, and as / understand
his argument, that her death was caused
by an overdose of morphine administer
ed by herself, and was not an act of the
defendants.
"That he did so was found by the
jury, who convicted him upon evidence
which was subsequently held by the
Court Of Appeals to be sufficient to sus-
tain the ining Of the jury.
THAT her death was caused by NOR
phine has been both conceded and
proven, and the opinion of the learned
Judge Gray relating to the cause OF
the death OF the deceased, ably Sustains
the action OF the jury in the case.
"In concluding his opinion on the
whole case, Judge Gray says:
Upon the most careful considera-
ton of this record and the question
raised by that consideration, or by the
counsel for the appellant, fail to dis
cover the existence Of any substantial
errors, and, in my opinion, no cause ex-
lists for awarding to the defendant an
other trial upon this indictment.
"' To justify this Court in granting
the motion now pending before it, after
the highest court in the State has
passed upon all the questions, both OF
. ha ri
and has determined that there are no
substantial errors prejudicial in any
way to the defendant, and that the YER
dict rendered against him was fully
substantiated by the evidence, and that
Justice does not require that new trial
should be granted, this Court should
see 10 IL that such a case is now pre-
presented as the statue and the rules
governing such motions which will JUS
tify the Court in the exercise OF a well
regulated judicial discretion In deter
mining whether another trial should be
granted.
"Ia entertaining this motion / must
not only regard the facts stated IN the
moving papers and the papers read in
opposition 20 the motion, but must
also take into consideration that tessi-
mony aad the proceedings had and
taken upon the trial and the results ar
rived at BY the Court Of Appeals in IFS
determination on the appeal from the
Judgment against the defendant"
Then follows an examination Of the
evidence presented by the recent aida
Wits. That Of Miss Jackson he dismisses
as being hearsay and one which on
trial would not be admitted.
In regard TO the affidavit OF Mary \.
Lewis. the domestic in DR.. Treverton's
household in Scranton, who had seen
Miss Potts take morphine pills while 4
guest at Dr. Treverton's house, the Re-
corder says: at is vague and unreli
able"
OF Joseph 81. LETTERS (the drug
clerk's) affidavit, that he had sold
Helen Potts morphine pills at AshbdrJ
Park, Recorder Smith says: st Is
Clearly proven to my satisfaction thai
it is false in every particular, ant
would so be considered by any impair
tial jury"
In discussing Or. Kinmouth's afida
Wit that he had sold Helen Potts NOR
phine pills on the representation thaf
she wanted them for her mother, The
Recorder notes that Charles E. King
affidavit, put in by Mr. Nicol, states
shat D.. Kinnouth told him he nevel
sold anybody, or allowed his clerks Il
sell anybody morphine without pre-
scription.
or the testimony Of Mrs. Wallace, OF
which Harris based great hopes. thS
Recorder says: 1.-The District Attorney
brought out fatal contradictions in bel
testimony and rendered it untrustwcr
thy"
The testimony Of Pratt to the effec
that the murdered woman rode apl
horseback frequently. and that whe
met her at supper she seemed dro
and acted as though under the influe