New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-13
|!E13!l2l!S
EXTRACT
FOR
DETERMINATIONS, HEM0RRhAGES,
AND ALL PAIN.
Prepared only BY PONDS EXTRACT Co.,
NEW YORK AND LONDON
SEE eur name on <peyy 'o,atper and Aa6t"


her Ms 10 her rights under the law II is obvious That
she was not competent In the trying and eAasperaiG
ordeal through which the District Attorney put her'
always or often apply Mr.. JenningSs instructions
| Mr.. Ksowlton tangled her. II was an easy ehoue"
| task. 1t was not a feat TO be proud Of. and when
the minutes OF that examination read, considering
who she was considering the history OF her me-
consderng her sex ard considering those seven long
! days Of acute suffering, through which she h''d
! passed considering also. and not Win 'he
least attention. the studied arts OF inc
| lawyer to get her mixed up 'he
wonder is not that he at times Succeeded but mat
she did not completely break down and confess TO
anything that would put end 10 that terrible 'na
or course II Lizzie Borden goes on the stand al
| though this evidence has been excluded rs part
OF the prosecutions case It will be competent Tor
| the District-AttOrney in his cross-eAamlha'oh w
cover the same ground which he covered then. ana
| II her present answers differ from those she then
| gave to make what he can OF the difference IL Is
said by her friends that she recalls those scenes
I'm the coroner's Office without having something Ike
n nervous chill. 1t Is said that despite her apparent
stcdity she as much afraid OF the District Attorney
Il intend no personal dsrcspcct 10 him by the com
parison-as Autering bird Is Of snake. She breads
| going on the wtncssstand almost as much us she
breads not going.
The lawyers entered. nj the very opening III court
this morning. upon the argument OF the question oil
the admissibity OF Miss Bordcn's former testimony
In order appreciate the discussion. II Is necessary
to recall the Of the agreed stipulation They
| were printed on Sunday In The Tribune, but are
| given again herewith IN full:
THE STIPULATION.
l. The declarations offered are testimony under oath
OF the accused in judicial proceeding. namely. an In
quest Of death OF the two persons named
in the Indictment trial. duly notified and held
by before the District Court in Fall River IN ac
cordance with the provisions Of the public statutes
. The defendant not then under ARE st. bns 'hec
DAYS before the giving such testimony notified
by City Marshal and Mayor OF Fail River that she was
suspected Of committing the crimes charged In the ndc
ment on trial and the and the inmates. Including
the defendant thereafter. until her arrest under the
constant observation Of police officers Of Fall River
specially detailed for purpose and stationed around the
house.
g. That before testified she was duly summoned
bv subpoena n attend inquest and testify thereat
a. Tha. before she so testified she requested. through
her counsel J. Jennings. OF the Di-ttNtorncy ana
the Judge preside and presiding at said inquest inc
privilege to have said counsel there present. which
request refused by both the Attorney ana the
| Judge and said counsel was not present
s. That whco her testimony given was cohciuu'u'
She was allowed leave the courthouse ana was
about two hours afterward placed under arrest upon
warrant issued the charge and accusation oi haNs
committed the crimes forth In this Indictment Said
warrant issued upon complaint sworn 10 priofe inc
clerk OF said District Court acting as justice OF peace
under the statute which was Ieturnahle 10 said Ds''
|
testimony Of defendant the inquest being The same
complaint upon which defendant was tried before SAID
District Court and hc' answer before the "r'hn july
said city marshal pcscnt at the inquest "h'h ue
| defendant testified.
g. PRIOR 10 said Inquest wit the day next before
she was summoned as above stated complaint charging
her with the OF the two pcrons as to whose deaths
the inquest was held 70 by said city marshal
before the same justice Of peace and clerk ard warrant
aei thereon. returna>- like said hrstnamcd warrant
M the defendant ana placed in the hands o
| said city marshal The city marshal did not serve TINS
warrant and the defendant wa' not Informed OF IT, NO
action wac taken said warrant but the same WAS c-
Turned after the conclusion the Defendants Testimony
and before the issuance Of the warrant upon which she
| arrested.
= mat before giving her testimony Is above she was
not cautioned ty said said Attorney that
she was not obliged 70 testify anything which might
crima,c herself but sat counsel was informed by the
said Attorney that he could before defendant
testified with Ter in relation thereto 'nd he al
.. The and character Of the testimony on're
may lie by court in determining the ques
ton Of its admisslblity.
D. All rights as 10 the competency OF any Of the above
agreed facts resolved.
MR.. MOODY'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Moody began the discussion with the citation
Of cases which sustained as he claimed his view ol
It, Both sides. he said, were agreed as to the cir
cumstances under which Lizzie Borden gave her cyl
dence before the Coroner at Fall River. He held
It be a subject OF cOngrauation. when II certainty
counsel were so generally able to agree facts with
which both sides were familiar II proved a az,
position which he knew he entertained and was glad
TO conccdc TO the other side 70 be entirely iar ana
candid. The question to the adms sibllty OF 'ls
as voluntary or involuntary declaration Of the de-
PENDANT. lie supposed that other questions, such a'
said might be used against her. or whether she wa,
present under process. or whether she wa, at INC
questions That evidence in law Is voluntary which
a witness prefers to give rather than to plead hi'
crminate and deG.ide the witnessl. Now the prlsone
at the bar did not peaa hrr privilege she .l prs
claiming 10 he disconnected with the crime. why i
not admscs T WSo d,n,e n ,Sy that That w a
not cautioned by the Coroner to her rights. eh
10 the 10 Gr er g ii" before ir Hs
into the examination. She knew her rights
NETWORK PRECEDENTs CITED.
Mr. Moody passed then to IN" consideration OF pre-
ccdents, renarking he did that the English am
, earlier cases gave little light upon the question her
: | AT ISSUE because they related n period OF tim
when the defendant did not have the right TO tcsii
in hs own behalf The only really satisncIcr,
where II held that II the witness was not ociial
under arrest his voluntary answers TO such Question
had been asked nj the inquest might be used O
I In illustration Of this claim Mr. Moody. read fror
. numerous cases in the NewYOrk reports but h
asserted greater degree of significance In them an
closer relation between Them and the case AT bl
han they seemed 10 warrant. lie C1lcn NluiIl
and several in Massachusetts, 1t appears. how
ever. that this question has never reached the Su
preme Court here, the equivalent in ts State Of tn
Court OF Appeals in New.lork. lie proved bcyon
all doubt that the courts We're alone In holding tina
the voluntary declarations OF witness at prclin
5 mary proceeding TO ascertain whether a crime hat
j., been committed. and who was probably the criminal
might BE- put In evidence In a subsequent procecdn
against the witness. but that Is not precisely TIL
5 case Mr. Moody tried to show that II was but h
+ couldn't. Ex-Governor RobinsOns reply cearl
pointed ont the difference.
GOVERNOR ROBINsON'S REPLY.
fTovanor Robinson REQUIRED promptly TO III
h facts In the lie stated them as follows thi
n being his Interpretation OF the OF the agree
J. stipulation:
Y l. These homicdes committed on August 4
and the evidence shows that DR.. DOlan took possesso
Of the bodies and autopsy was held 10 asccrtai
the cause OF death.
=. An inquest was begun on the 9th and continue
through the 10th and 11th.