The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-12-31
The Dugged Candy Caused The Death Of
Mrs. Dunning and Her Sister.
SUMMING UP OF TIE PROSECUTION
District Attorney Hosmers SCalhlng Condemnation
Of tbs Accused Her Relations With Dunnng
Furnished Motive For the Awful Crime.

San Francisco, Dec. 3l.-The jury i'm
the Botkin case has returned verdict
OF murder i'm the first degree, with pen
atty fixed at life imprisonment.
District Attorney Hosmer commenced
his argument with the incident attend
ing the arrival of the package of candy
at the Dover. Del. post office. lie con-
demned the defence for insinuating that
the package might have been placed In
the mail bag by any one connected
with the post office. He accused the at
torneys of going behind the facts. He
traced the package TO the remington
home. its delivery to the unsuspecting
Mrs. Dunning, and the passing OF the
bon-bons to other guests, their sickness
and the death of Mrs. Dunning and her
sister.
Mr. Hosrner pictured the grief Of the
parents and friends of the pennington
and Dunning families, and concluded
with a scathing attack upon the prls-
oner He took up the analysis or the
candy by chemist Wolfe of Dover Del,
and Prof Price OF this city. lie rlul-
culed the defence for it's contention that
members of the police department IN
this city or even the chemists thein-
selves might have inserted the poison To
make out a case. He pointed out that
chemist Wolfe had found lump arsenic
and that DIR. Price had discovered the
presence of powdered arsenic. The de-
fence i'm argument asserted that ON!
lump arsenic had been FOUND. lie
showed that, in spite OF Mrs. Botkln
statements and the assertions OF the
defence TO the contrary, the woman had
atHf
that her life with him was licentious
and depraved. He pointed To Dunnings
action in coming across the continent
10 prosecute her. and asserted that Dun
ming would not have gone through
what he had unless he was certain OF
the guilt OF Mrs. Botkin; tnat he woulu
not have disclosed their relations anu
been exposed To the critlclsms Oh tne
newspapers and public without just
reason. - ,oo-
He took up the letter Of June il. 1897
which the defence claimed had been
mailed in this city at the time Mrs.
Botkin was residing in Eureka Inc
letter asserted that Dunning was imam
ciaIly embarrassed and that the woman
with whom Dunning was infatuated
was a divorced woman. He proved py
Mrs. Botkin's own testimony that she
ard Dunning alone knew of his imam
clal condition, and showed by the testi-
mony of Mr. Dunning that Mrs. Botkln
had told him on his return from SALT
Lake that she had secured divorce
from her husband during Dunnings alb
sence.
Mr.. IIosmer argued on the authorship
of the anonymous letters ana the au-
dress on the box of candy. lie asserted
that Mrs. Botkin was the writer OF the
letters and had written the address on
the box of candy.
Mr.. Hosmer concluded his address by
asking the Jury to return just verdict
"A verdict OF murder in the first de-
gree
Judge Cook delivered his charge 10
the Jury the reading of which occupied
more than an hour. The jury then re-
tired to deliberate on the guilt or inno-
cence of the accused woman.
Mrs. Botkin cried bitterly several
times during the day, and during the
reading OF the charge almost lost con-
troll of herself Her sister. who sat be-
side her took Mrs. Botkin I'm her arms
and comforted her as best she could.