The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-12-17

receive any money. The State did not ask
the witness any more questions, and De was
excused.
A NUMBER OF WITNESSES.
The next witness called was DIR. Barnes.
He said he was a physician and nicros-
copist and understood microscope; he
was the teacher Of the science I'm the Col
lege of Physicians and Surgeons. He said
the objective I'm a microscope was the
glass next to the object TO be viewed He
said the first glass was called the eve
piece. and that II took experience TO know
how to handle microscope He said his
microscope was a good one. and that hs
had loaned II TO DR.. Eisenoeiss: He said
II had two objeetives a s one-nfth and
power Of an objective was determined by
several means. A micrometer Is generally
there was aeseI rreat deal of difference be.
tween a one-slxth and three-fourth OBJ
1ective. He said one-sixth objective
with his one~inch eye piece would magni-
fifth would make IL four hundred and sew
enty-five diameters. He said the shape OF
mined with the naked eye. He said that
DR.. Eisenbeiss had called him up by tele-
phone few days ago snd ssked the size
and he told him their size He said he
was at DR.. Eisenbeisss office when he
versatio nm" with it him, IN which DR.. Essen
eeiss had said that he believed the de-
Iendant was guilty OF poisoning the koes-
posons besides arsenic that present per-
rect octahedral crystals. He said that
lodlde or mercury under some conditions
presented perfect octahedral crystals. The
witness was then questioned very closely
and explained in detail the difference be-
scope
DISCRIMINATION: The witness said he
had talked with the attorneys about the
case and suggested some questions to the
defense. He said DR.. Eisenbeiss and him
self were on good terms.
The witness was then re-examined by the
derense and said he had had tests made
of Mill & Lacey's embaiming fluid; he
the tests made. and they revealed arsenic.
The witness said he had established a school
about one year. He had made a special
study OF enbalming DIR. Hurry was then
recalled. and testified that he had made
an analysis OF Mills q Lacey's embalming
fluid, and gave the ingredients contained.
among which was arsenic in large quanti-
ties.
Mrs. Finnaman was then called by the de-
fense and testified as to the character OF
the defendant She said she had known
the defendant was employed by her (Tit-
ness) The witness said a death had oc-
CURED in her family white the defendant
was afraid OF the corpse. She tainted while
looking at the corpse.
whom the preliminary hearing of the de-
PENDANT was held. He asked If the de-
PENDANT was admitted TO bail, but the ques-
ton was objected TO by the State, ard the
objection was sustained.
Charles Cyinerzoll was then called by
the defense as a character witness, and tes-
titled that he had known the defendant
about three Years; that he knew her in Ger
many, where she lived upon a farm. He
said her reputation in the old country was
good, but he had not known her in this
country.
Mr.. Finnaman was therpcalled, and tes-
titled that the character of the defendant
good; that a death had occurred in
the family while the defendant was en-
ployed in the family, and that she was
Mrs Sophie Mingus was next called, and
said she had known the defendant, but not
well enough acquainted with her TO speak
to her. She said her reputation was good
In answer TO the questions by Mr.. Holtz-
man, she said she had heard the character
of the defendant discussed among women
they gossiped.
The record Of the will Of Frank L. Koes-
tiers was then offered and admitted into the
evidence without objection. Mr.. Spaan then
said that all of their witnesses were not
present and asked that court be adjourned
till Monday morning, and il was adjourned
till that time.