The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-31


guests, their sickness and the death Of Ms.
Dunning and her sister. Mr. Hosmer pic
tured the grief Of the parents and friends
Of the Pennington and Dunning family.
and made scathing attack upon the pois-
oner He took up the analysis Of the candy
by Chemist Wolf. Of Dover. and Prof.
Price, OF this city. He rdicuied the defense
for It's contentious that the members or the
police department OF this city. or even the
chemists themselves. might have inserted
the poison to make out a case. he pointed
out tina, Chemist Wolf found lump arsenic
and that DIR. Price had discovered the
presence Of powdered arsenic. The defense
in argument asserted that only lump ar
senic had been found.
Desperate Efforts Of the Defense.
Mr.. Hosmer addressed the fury ON the
rights of Witnesses. He ccn;ended that All
witnesses were entitled to respect ana
credit until disproyed, and that none OF the
witnesses for the prosecution had been
proved untruthfu The attorneys FOR the
defense had attacked all the witnesses Tor
the prosecutions and iiad introduced mat
terx entirely irrelevant to the case In an
attempt TO besmirch and TO oelittie ,heir
testimony. He attacked Attorney hnisnt
parsicu,arly, and characterized his Efforts
to free his client az dishonest and despic-
ah,e." He asserted that the attacks OF the
defense had ended In naught: that not onS
witness had been contraaieted.
Hosmer then took up Mrs Botkin's ses''-
monv. He showed that in spite OF Ars.
po,kin's statements and the assertions
af the defense TO the contrary. that the wo-
man had more than a passing regard ior
Dunnang: that her life with him was licen-
,io,,s and depraysd. He pointed TO Dun
rings action In ming across the cohti-
rent to prosecute her and asserted that
Danning would not have gone through
with what he had unless .,e vas certain or
,ta guilt OF Mrs, Botkin. He would not
have disclosed their relations and been ex-
poss,s to the criticism OF tho newspapers
and pubic without just reason. iosmer
took I'D the letter Of June II. 1887. which
the defense claimed had been mailed IN
this city at the tirne Mrs. Botkiu was re-
siding in Eureka Tho letter asserted that
punning was financially embarrassed ani
.ha, the woman with whom Duuning was
infatuated was divorced woman. He
proved by AIRS. Botkin's own testimony
financial condition. and showed by the tes-
timony of Dunnsng that Mrs. Botktn had
told him on his return from Salt Lake that
she had secured a divorce from her hus-
band during his Dunning's) absence. Hos
u1er argued tina. the letter in dispute could
have been sent from Eureka 10 san Fran
cisco on the steamer Faraiion and nailet
here On the arrival of the vessel. He ex-
pounded this theory with SO much force
ard effec. that knight. becoming fright
ened at the possible result 10 his client. en-
tered a vigorous objectiou 10 Hosmer's ar
surnenr He was not sustained by the
court, however. ard Hosmer VAS permit
ted 10 continue On this lire Hcsrusr then
argued on the authorship os the anonymous
letters and the address on the box OF can
dy. He went over the eysienee % the ex-
perts carefully ard asserted that M-s. Bot
kin was the writer OF the letters and Rad
rSt:eu the address on the box Of candy.
Hesgner concluded his address by asking
tie jEry 10 fetvrn a juss verdict, verIlc,
C. murder IN the first degree.
After a short rccesss. judge Cook deiv-
cred his charge 30 the jury, the resiAslTy
OF which occupied more than an hoar.
The iAY then retired 70 deliberate On the
gtlglt Or lnnocenee oi the accused wonaan y
Mrs. Eotklu cr:~i bitterly several i3gnes
during ths day. ard during The read.ng -
tne caavge slfuost .o@t csnfrc1 of herss L.
Fer ssscr, wno sat sesi+e her during iss
progrsss os The trial. took Myz. goskin ix
her arms. and corrsforted her as s~rw she
coaAl. bat tire tears cesssa net be stayed