New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-12-16

Brandt ana ndu ne not, Hlstedu' suilc"ut''" Wv
antimony and the morphine into Brandts posses
sion, telling Brandt from whom and for what
purpose he had received them? Was not that
enough to arouse Brandt's suspicion? And. accord
ing to the States own Witnesses Brandt was
an educated man. n graduate In medicine n man
who understood all about these drugs and their
action Then was It likely that he would go on
taking them and that having suffered excruciat-
Ing PAIN he would meeky submit 10 be agonzed
to his death?
The States chemical experts swore that they
had found anthony and arsenic In Brandts BODY,
but what OF that? The defence denies that II was
Brandt's body. but whosever body 1t was. no con-
clls,on Is compelled by the fact OF the pres
ence in its organs OF poisonous drugs 1--WE shall
show you" said Mr.. Chaner. that II they had
been administered before death their effect would
have been to preserve the body so well that upon
It's examination. three months later. II would have
been easily possible discover plain evidences OF
the irritating effects OF the drugs In the CASTRO
intestinal tract. But the State was able TO IND
no such evidence. and IL explains its failure by
saying that the body was so decomposed That
microscopic Investigation was Impossible. Now, II
was either decomposed or It was not. II IL was
decomposed we shall show you that the anthony
and arsenic. which are personalities. could not
r,osslbly have been administered before death III
1t decomposed. the results Of their action
II taken before death would have been easily per
ceived."
In closing, Mr. Chanler said: Remember. gen.
tle,nen that you not here TO crafty the PRIDE
of an ambitious official. You are not here to ac-
compsh the revenges OF an enraged corporation
You are not here TO find victim to oner az
sacrifice IN atonement for the life or Brandt but
you are here. gentlemen, under onth TO render
even handed Justice between the State and this
prisoner and God grant that you may have the
wisdom to find the truth and the courage to de-
Flare f. This man, bounded into the peril OF his
life seeks "A refuge In this high presence Ills lid
erty the breath OF his body, Is In your Keeping
We ask not as a boon a favor. but as our
right that In this moment OF his Infinite danger
vou will put from your minds all other purpose
than TO deal honestly with him and truly to perform
vour oath 10 give him his freedom unless his guilt
no established, not as a matter OF Inference. not
as a conjecture. but beyond n reasonable douDt
Crowded the courtroom has been SINCE 'his
trial began and crowded as II continued 10 oe
all day yesterday, It evident that interest IN
the proceedings waned greatly when 1t was fouhd
that neither the prisoner his wife was 10 De
called as a witt ess and the States case was 10
20 to the jury practically without continuation
DR. John NJ. Byron. young man VINO spoke WIN
an accent and said he was born In South America
that he had been graduated from a medical schooi
in Nanes in 1881, and had subsequently studied
medicine in Paris. and that he was a professor OF
bacteriology In the University Of New-fork' was
the defendants first witness He began 10 deliver
10 the Jury essay on bacteria, when "ir' Nico'i
interrupted him to say that there was nothing
about bacteria In the case. and That re did
not deny anything which scientihc people
claim TO have ascertained concerning that order
of plants. The judge said he did not himself see
the nurpose of the testimony. and Mr.. O'Suvan
was reluctantly constrained TO abandon H. Dr.
Byron testified that bodies treated with arsenic 90
not readily undergo putrefactivc changes. IN
stead they dry up. II a man died from the enects
Of bio hody
,keIv to decompose. This testimony designed
IN cast doubt on the statement of the States patho-
logical experts that the organs OF Baums Dody
were too much decomposed to permit n microscopic
investigation The doctor asked II 1t was posi-
HE IN recognize an unembamed body three months
| after death. Mr. Ncol objected. on the ground
that the witness had not qualified an expert on
that subject, but the Court allowed the question.
| and the doctor said 1t would be impossible that
the putrefaction would have gone so far as to
render Identification out Of the question. except
by the teeth by some deformity.
DIR. O'sULLIvAN TRIES a HYPOTHETICAL CUES
Mr. O'Sullivan put a hypothetical question. II
described Brandts symptoms substantially as they
| have been told by Muller and DR.. Minden. IL
| stated that the physician attending the case had
| diagnosed and treated 1t for acute dysentery. II
inquired II the witness thought the diagnosis cor
rect or Incorrect But 1t altogether omitted any as
sumption that poisons had been taken before death,
and Il omitted all reference to the facts In evidence
| "a TO the condition Of the body after DEATH The
| vitness said that the facts stated In the ques-
t,on he thought that dysentery was the cause
| NJ death. Then Mr. OSullivan asked him II his
| oninion would be changed upon the declaration OF
chemists that they had found from six to ten grains
| ~ anthony and from two to three grains OF ar
| sen,c in the body three months after death The
utness said that his opinion would not be changed
| On cross-examination Mr.. Ncol brought out the
,oct that the doctor only thirty-two years old
md that his principal study Of dysentery had been
during the war between Peru and Chill In 1873
| 80. - there no evidence that the anthony
"a arsenic had been injected after death and the
Ssr,sts swore that from their discoveries to the
s,.,r,hution of the poisons throughout the body
=, Vas their opinion that they were administered
| -. assth, It would change his judgment.