The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1893-12-13
MEYER MURDER TRIAL.
Further Testimony Against the
Alleged Poisoner.
MINDBN ON THE WITNESS STAND.

Fhe Doctor Declares That the Medicine
Ho Prescribed Contained Neither Ar
senic or Antmony Damaging Evidence
of insurance Men.
NEW York. Dec. l3-The evidence in
the trial of hcalleged poisouer DIR. Henry
c. 7. Meyer, yesterday, while not 50
thrillingly tragic as that given by his
Rccomplicc. Carl Muller, was interesting
enough to- hold an audience quiet and at-
teutive all day long. The testimony was
all corroburative of the story told by
Muller, and pointed strongly to- the claim
he makes that Meyer was the principal i'm
the scheme todefraud the insurance COM
pauies.
The case was rcopcncd with the cross
examination of Daniel G.. Gillette mana
ger of the department of revision i'm the
Mutual Life Insurance company whose
suspicious had been aroused by the uu-
seemly haste of the widow to collect the
policies on her dead husbands life. He
told the whole story over again; how the
! alleged widow Amelia Baum. came to
| him April II, 1892, with William Reuter-,
whom he now recognizes in DR. Meyer.
! He questioned her closely, and was much
amazed by Interruptions by Reuter-, who
talked with the woman in a foreign
! tongue, how the woman seemed to have
very little information to impart about
| her dead husband, although, to account
| for her delicate condition, she told him
she had lived with Baum two years in
| Denver, although they had not been mar
ried till Feb. II. 1899, six weeks before he
died; how she could not name the street
| in Denver, nor tell place where her al
! legged husband had been employees; how
| he succeeded, by a preteXt, in securing
| specimens of the handwriting of both of
! his visitors, and on what he had learned
| from them began the investigation which
| ended in the discovery of Muller, the ar
rest of DIR. and Mrs. Meyer and their pros
| ecution.
Mr. Brooke for the defense tried to lead
the witness to acknowledge irreguarity
in his method of investigation, but failed
Thomas r. Meyer, Cyrus NJ. Mum,
! Wright Burage and Thomas Tierney, also
! insurance men, gave corroborative testi-
! mony. Xachariah Hermanson, Chicago
newspaper man, identified photograph
| of Brandt, and then Mrs. Muller was put
on the stand. Her testimony was not di-
rectly pertaining to this particular crime,
| and of no value.
| Then Undertaken Kip testified to the
! funeral of Brandt and the eXhumation of
| the body, and Coroner Schulz testified re
! garding the inquest, when it was decided
that Brandt had been poisoned by anti
mony and arsenic.
DIR. Given b. Minden testified that in
March, 1892, he was called in to attend a
! man giving the name of Baum, but who
proved to be Brandt. Two days after
Muller and WINNER visited witness.
| WINNER brought a card to witness in
which Baum stated the medicine pre-
scribed by witness had failed to relieve
him Witness called at the Baum fiat
and was taken to Brandt's room, where
the latter lay in bed He was introduced
by Baum to Mrs. Meyer as his wife. Ex-
amined patient and found that his bowel
| complaint had grown worse. He sup
| posed that the patient had taken medi-
cines prescribed by him, but was not GER
tain. Witness attended him daily until
the time of his death. He had grown
worse with each day DR.. Mnden said
that if the medicines had been given to
his patient it could not have been in the
way prescribed by him. None of his pre-
scriptiOns contained either antimony or
! arsenic.
At the evening session DR.. Minden was
cross examined by Lawyer O'Sullivan.
He denied that he had been promised any
money by the district attorney, but adj
mitted that the Mutual Life insurance
company had agreed to pay him for the
time spent on the case.