The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-19
THE LEsrER MURDLR TRfAL.
The Interest Undiminished and Large
cro,vI. Acknowledgment Testimony

Crawl. Attend Expert Testimony
NfARTINSVILLEr VA. Dec h.-spe-
ciaI THE case OF the Commonwealth
.e,inet M. ". Lester. for murder by poi
SON. still creates great interest lH ,'.'
county. and the COurt-hOuae 10 -
with anxious spectators. my "' -,',e-
80 VI, testified to-day was Mr.. d. Nia"-
dock whose evidence. in substance ''.0
the ureparation made by the pll7oi'',,' 49,.
t-c crime bv inQuirins of the VIM
Int r,ss,us and Just TWO lays belo'
tne poisoning occurred sent INC "-l1' -
10 Marunsyiue, where the 81! c"''i''D "7-
procured. ,, 10 v-oftll
toll him what hc could get TO hih crows
and the witness. among ether thlhh7' gus
gosted strvchnlne. The prisoner next "'
0nired where IL could be obtained 900"
was Informed that the witness nag 7o'.
some at a drug store IN ROCKY NOUN.
qhe next witness. j. T. DAVIS, sAtlll'
testified that ON Tie "a OF Heui uaIy t'lS
deceased. when hc came TO Maruna|lhe'
did not see hin or pay MIN any h, |.g
W. w. Lester and James l.. Ford teau-
fed that on the said day thtl ine ",
ceased did not bring him any ieilei livlI
the prlsorCr. The witness was from Town
that dag. and had never since Ie''N. n
tho letters purpCrted TO nave been sent
him by the deceased.
THE next witness }. vs.. Davis. father ~
the dead young man. tesiiil,d llat on we
dav following his sons death that inc
prisoner approached him ana urs'n tnAl
"A pCst-mortem shot ld not be hcld. saying
that if no investigation was made inc IN
eurancc money would be- obtained ln thlI
Is DAYS. and that he would divide WIN
witness. but q "a post-mortcm eAaIi'il'"-
tion was made and 10 was known by the
COMPANY. they would not get "a cent.
Witness was greatly ontaneled on cross
examination. and proved himself exceed
inclv ignorant illitcratc and Weakening
ed frequently contradicting himself I'D
answer to questions he ala not uHuel-
stand. ..
davs after the young mans death, in
conversation with the prisoner the prs
onor admitted 10 witness that he. me
prisoner. had given the deceased n drink
Of liquor. but that he was IN the haDll
Of doing so.
Il. W. L. PhipCt. He testified that ne
surveyed and plotted the distances from
point TO point of all the places OF I'M
portance connected with the place where
the deceased did, and presented the pat
TO the court.
Dr. 4. d. Wood. as a notary, took the
Acknowledgement 10 the assignment CT
the policies of insurance by the deceased
and his father. Ilc stated that the a--
signors were totally illiteratc men. ana
that ne merely ltdN TO tNDiU iit tN-iAil-
mcnts and gave them no further eNpiana-
tions thereof. but signed their names.
making their marks, and certified the ac-
acknowledgement.
Or j. w. Mallet. OF the University OF
Virginia, gave expert testimony concern
ing the analysis Of the stomach. made
by the State Chemist. Or. w. II. Taylor
lie said additional tests might have been
u~ide. but would not say that Or. Tay-
lOrs was Incorrect or unreliable. and 10
moral certainty Indicated the presence OF
sfrvchnine i'm tho CO nfenfs OF the stomach.
Mrs j. y. Walker testified she saw the
deceased pass her house iate in the even
ing and IN q few minutes after she was
called TO where he was diving. only "a
few hundred Yards from her mousse. Her
statement Of his dying eymntrm ms FUZZY
corrohoratod the witness for the Com
ouwoalth on this point and was almost
identical with the symptoms given by
DIT Mallct as the symptoms Of strych-
nine poison
other witnesses testified ~ some length
on similar lines. When Mrs. w. w. Les
tor was rrt on tho stand frr tho defence
William VI Povton for tho common
wealth objected 90 her testifving. on the
grounds that tho law allowing tho wife 20
testify on behalf OF her husband in n
criminal case was unconstitutional hc-
cause Tho caption cid not contain tho
criminal feature IN IL. The Court ruled
out the witness.