Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-02-02
STOLEN EVIDENCE.


was once retained by the defense in q
case where an innocent man came near
FORGETTING his life.
The facts were these: Mr.. Courtney, a
rich old bachelor, had two nephews-Ed-
ward Horton his sisters son, and Charles
Courtney, the son of his brother-who had
inherited handsome fortune on the death
Of his father.
Mr.. Courtney died suddenly and it was
discovered that it was the result of dan
gerous prescription which Edward Horton
had received from the family physician
and had taken to drug store to be filled.
The doctor, who was a man of reputa-
ton, swore that another prescription had
been substituted containing dangerous
poison. OF course the nephew made the
substitution, and he was put in prison.
To make matters worse, it TRANSFERRED
that the amicable relations between the
uncle and nephew had been somewhat dis
turbed of late by reason of an attachment
of the latter disapproyed by the former,
who had gone so far as to threaten to
change his will unless his wishes were
respected.
"Who was in company with you from
the time you received the medicine till you
returned to your uncle's houses" asked
the prisoner, desperately CROPPING after
something to afford ray of hope.
"No one" he answered, "but my cousin
Charles, whom I met near the druggists
and who accompanied me-"
drew from Edward the fact that
Charles saw the medicine put up, walked
with him little way, then went back for
something, Edward awaiting his return,
then walked arm in arm nearly home,
when Charles left
also reminded Edward that, his uncle
being Dead if he also should die childless
Charles would inherit the whole estate.
"He did it; he did it'll" the young man
cried in a paroxysm Of excitement too ear
nest to be counterfeit.
''He went out to get the poison when he
left me waiting. He put it up to resemble
the druggists parcel, for which he substi-
tuted it as we went along. Villain
know it now! carried the parcel in the
right pocket of my overcoat, and it was on
that side he walkedW
l was seated in my office on the day
preceding that fixed for the trial indulg
ing in anything but sanguine expectations,
when tap at the door announced q Wis
itor. 1t was detective whom had EN-
ployed.
"What is itS" inquired after closing
the door.
II made an arrest today" he answered,
"and in the prisoners possession found
this overcoat," undoing package he had
brought.
"Well?"
"In one of the pockets l found this"
And he handed me small parcel, which
Iopened.
Inside were three papers, folded as drug
gists put up their prescriptions.
"The person with whom I found the
coat" the detective continued, Confessed
that he stole it from billiard saloon, the
owner having laid it aside while playing,
and the date he fixes corresponds with
Mr.. Courtney's murder. But what is more
important, have ascertained that Charles
Courtney is the owner Of the coat"
"Let us go to the druggists" exclaim-
ed, springing from my chair and snatch
ing up my hat.
We were soon there.
- i
putting it into the druggists hands.
lie did SO, carefully opening the papers
and inspecting their contents. They con-
tanned three white powders.
How do they correspond with those
you made up for Mr.. Courtney" inquir-
ed, land for which others seem to have
been SO mysteriously substituted?"
"They do not correspond at all, !" he an
swered. "They are the same.'
'The same? How do you know that"
"By those figures" he replied, pointing
to the inside of one Of the papers. II had
made calculation that day on the sheet
of paper, part of which l used in putting
up the prescription bought by Mr.. Edward
Horton. The remainder have preserved,
not knowing but it might become impor-
tant. Here it is, and you see how this
piece and the figures fit"
They did exactly. The chain of evidence
was complete.
need hardly tell you how the trial end
ed. Charles Courtney was called by the
prosecution to prove some important point
The counsel whom had retained for the
defense asked him but three questions on
cross examinations
llau ne accompanied the prisoner from
the druggist's'"
Had he lost an oyercoat that day."
"Was that it:'
The questions were very simple, but the
effect on the witness was most remarka-
BILE. He trembled and turned pale. He
knew his secret was out and that lying
was useless
He answered all three questions in the
affirmative and in voice scarcely audible.
Before the next witness was called he slip
ped from the court and was never heard Of
afterward.
With the testimony Of the detective and
the druggist, not forgetting that of the
thief who stole the overcoat, we made short
work of what had promised to be beau
tiful case Of circumstantial evidence
New York Journal.
What Enterprise Did.