New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-15

to consideration. But they haven't got at her at
ALL They have made case showing simply, and
because she was the only person at hand when
the crime was committed, that she might have
done it, Then they attempt to supply motive
and intent by means of all these little scrappy
incidents. No one of them really amounts to
anything, but all taken together and all lookei
ut in the light Of the fact that Lizzie was In or
about the house when her parents were muir
dered, and that nobody else appears to have been
there, they may have meaning. The Stat; Is
not to be criticised, of course, for producing
them. 1t is its duty to do so and yet the I'M
partial listener cannot avoid the feeling mat
they are not the right kind of evidence on which
to hang q person.
ANGRY TALK BETWEEN THE SISTERS
What this police matron said was that on
the Gath of August last, the prisoner pe'ns
then in confinement in the matrons charsc' sue
overheard an angry conversation between Lizzie
and her sister Emma. The matron was in the
room where the girls were, and admits that they
knew she was there. There was some talk that
she didn't hear. Then Lizzie said
.You gave me away. Emma"
Emma replied: "No. Lizzie, l did not give
you away -
Lizzie then said "Yes, you did give mo
away: but won't give in an nch.''
This is all the matron heard. Now, If that is
worth telling at all, clearly Emma is the witness
who should be called upon TO tell it. 1T may
have referred to something apart from the
tragedy. 1t may even have referred TO that
and still be consistent with the prisoners IN
rocencc The danger in all Of these little
points il that the jury will attach TOO much
Importance to them. OF course the defence can
point out their flimsy character, but IT Is not
81 Opsi6p
for what they are worth. no moro and no eSs'
TO get rid of an impression when once ~ Is
there.
THE ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO BUY POISON
The session ended with long discussion by
counsel of the admissibility of the testimony OF
the drug clerk by whom the State proposes to
rrove that the poisoner on the evening Oh
August 3, the night before the murders, attempted
70 buy some prussic acid The States claim Is
that this attempt tends TO prove the existence
in her mind of murdcrous purpose; that IL
coes 70 show that she meant harm TO somebody
Tho defence replies that, even If II does, there
is no proof that it meant harm 10 MI
and Mrs Borden. II it meant harm TO anybody
else. it is certainly rot admissible; and the evil
dence of Professor Wood that the stomachs Oh
the murdered people were absolutely free 1ro"
the presence of an rrant takes from the pf" rose
purpose applied to them. The purchase OF prussN
ncid is not unknown in household economy;
II il used for other purposes besides that OF
murder There is way for the Court to i insure
nnrpose for which the State protests it wants IL
In it VIII have in the iury's mind no I'M
prooNr effect ,u.o d,r,p.
The Jury was ont of the room, of course. DURING
this discussion. 1t is the practice IN MaS"t ,i
setts. when controvertcd issue OF thls KIM
arises. to give ample warning TO the oplectins
side, SO that no hint of the mature OF .e bar
hnen followed most literally in the trial Of Lizzie
BORDEN The jury leaves the room 1; n"iSl1 IL
knows what the subject is on which discussion Is
r. ensue The Court decided to admit the tfs ; ID
ony, but only for the purpose dlsnG,S a spic ms
tee Blodgett held the opinion that it was "a. aa ms
sible Justice Dewey dissenting Even Si' ,a tho
t"on The evidence was not heard. The lawyers
socmcd 10 have something more 10 say, ,,d a" ~
Gathered around the judges bench and taiKGl III
i"y and carnes, tones When they naa :, o bn,d
the Court, without ANNOUNCING nr that il had
come to another, abruptly caused an adjournment