The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1893-01-26
DEMPSEY GUILTY
Verdict Rendered in the Home
stead Poisoning Plot.
THE CHARGE TO THE JURY.
Judge Stoves Summing Up Of the Evi-
denoe in the Celebrated Case,

dencs in the Celebrated Case,
The Verdict Surprise to Somo-Counsel
for the Prosecution Say It Was just.
Defendant Asks for u Ncw Trial--It Is
Equivalent TO Conviction of MUIR
der.
PITTsBURG, Jan. 21.--Hugh F. Demp-
sey, master workman of District AS
sembly No. 3, of the knights of Labor,
was found guilty as indicted yesterday
on the charge of administering or caus-
ing to be administered poison, with in
tent to commit murder, to William b.
Griffith, waiter in the Homestead
mills. It was the seventh and last day
of the trial, and to the defendant it was
one of all importance. He arose before
the bar, when the jury fled in their
places after three hours deliberation.
His face wore the same obdurate ex-
preston as throughout the trial, and he
leaned with both hands on the railing in
front Of him. The verdict fell like
thunderbolt upon him and his counsel.
1t was unexpected. The defendants
head fell for a second, but the surprise
was only momentary. His countenance
frightened Immediately.
The extreme penalty for the crime for
which Deslpsey was convicted 10 $500
fine and ten years imprisonment.
Captain Breck. Of counsel for prO5ecu-
| ton, was much pleased over the verdict,
but said it was no more than he eX-
pected
Mr.. Porter said he would apply for a
new trial at once on the ground that the
verdict was not in accordance with the
judges charge. If that was not sue
cessful they would take the case to the
supreme court.
Judge Stowe then read his charge,
| which was as follows:
| The first question that meets us is, "wus
poison put into the food either tea or coffee or
| something else eaten or drums as food in the
| mill after the 7th Of September, S02T' the time
| that Gallagher says he first put this alleged
| poisonous powder into the ten or coffee which
| was given out as food Mt that time and after
ward. or course, il the evidence docs not
| satisfy US of that fact your verdict must be
| for the defendant. But if the evidence does
| satisfy you that poison was used, then the next
question Is, "Was It done with the knowledge
| or at the instance or by the authority Of tho
| defendant in this case" II the evidence
| does not satisfy you also of this fact beyond a
| reasonable doubt, then your verdict should be
| one of aCquittal, although you may be per-
| fcctly convinced that Gallagher or others did
| try to disable or murder Gf you please the
| half or all the men working In the mill.
| To Justify conviction the evidence must
/ satisfy you not only that poison was used. but
that it was by the direction or authority or
| connivance Of Dempsey that the poison was so
| used. The evidence of the commonwealth
| tending to show the sickness Of other persons
than w. L. Griffith was allowed not as evil
| dence tending TO show of itself or directly,
| that Griffith was poisoned by the defendant,
| but also as corrobOrativc, as indicating, that
| poison was used by some one in the mill, and
| Of the story of Gallagher that poison was
actually used by him in the mill at Home
| stead, as he said 1t was, and put into the food
| by him and served out to the men working in
| the mill at the time and under the circum-
| stances he deposed to.
| The fact that others than Griffith were pois-
| oned, If poisoned they were, would not, in any
| respect, tend or be competent of itself to
| establish the guilt of defendant in this case,
| but If the jury should be satisfied from the
| evidence upon this point that poison was being
! dealt out to the wCrkmen in the mill at the
time Gallagher says it was, then it would cor
| roborato him and tend to show the truth of his
dealt out there from time TO time, and thus
| strengthen the force and effect of his testi-
mony in that regard
Judge Stowe then reviewed the evil
dence that had been produced at length
and spoke Of Mr.. Dempsey's connection
with the case. In conclusion he said:
The fact that the defendant himself cor
roboratCs Gallagher when he admits that he
and Gallagher made an arrangement by which
the latter was TO go to the mill for purposes
suggested by defendant. But here is where
the difference upon which the guilt or inno-
uence Of the defendant depends comes in, and
which must be determined by the jury, and
which depends whether they believe Gala
CHER or Davidson or Dempsey, the defendant.
They differ as to the purpose, one contradlcts
the other two.
evidence in the case tending 10 lead your mind
| TO proper and just conclusion in that respect.
And here you must take into consideration the
evidence tending to show the reputation OF
character Of the defendant for peace and gen.
| eral good conduct, as well as the other tcsti.
| mony leading in the same direction and give
It such weight in determining the guilt or in.
| nocence of defendant as you may consider II
fairly entitled to.
Now, then, you will, first, determine as ques.
| tOns of fact, whether poison was used By Gal
lagher in the mill, as he says II was and, If so
|
Indictment, was sickened by such poison; and
If so whether Hugh F. Dempsey, the defend
ant was party 20 such poisoning, as alleged
by the commonwealth.
| have carefully avoided anything like nj
opinion upon either of these facts, because Il q
for you alone to determine them, and render
your verdict In accordance with such deter
mination without fear or favor.
The verdict, it is said, will have con
siderable bearing on the cases of Rober
F. Beatty, Patrick ]. Gallagher and j
NJ. Davidson. who are also charged will
completely in the Homestead poison plot
The cases Of these men are slated 70
Monday, and that of Jack Clifford on
charge of murder Is ON the docket 70
Tuesday 1t is expected and said ol
good authority that Clifford's trial will
be the Erst taken up by the prosecution