The record-union., 1898-12-31

pected, the Defense Confidently
Looking to an AcquittaI, and
the Prosecution a Disagree
ment-
SAN FRANCISCO, Dee. 30.-Rather
to the general surprise Of those who
have followed the Botkin trial, and TO
tile entire dismay of the defendant ana
her attorneys, Mrs. Cordelia Botkln
was tonight found guilty of murder
in the first degree for causing the death
of Mrs. John P. Dunning by sending
u box Of poisoned candy to her tenn
porary home in Dover, Del. The con-
demned murderess will be spared an
ignominious death on the gallows, how
ever, the jury that found her guilty
imposing also the penalty of life i'm
prisonment.
The verdict was unexpected. An ac-
CuittaI was confidently awaited by the
defense, while the prosecution feared
disagreement. Rumors had been in
circulation to the effect that several
of the jurors strongly favored the de-
fense, and that their opinions were too
firmly grounded to be capable Of
change.
Although the jury was only out four
hours, more than one of which was de-
voted to dinner, it is currently reported
tonight that the verdict was the result
Of a compromise. The sex Of the pris-
oner made such a conclusion satisfac-
tory to the jurors.
Considering the unexpectedness of
the verdict, Mrs. Botkin kept herself
we'll in hand when her fate was an
nounced. Not until the jurymen and
most of the spectators had left the
court room did she give evidences of
collapse. Then she sank back, half
fainting, but speedily revived when
given a glass of water.
Late this afternoon District Attorney
Hosmer completed his argument, and
Judge Carroll Cook read his charge to
the jury, after which it retired for de-
liberation.
The argument for the prosecution
closed with District Attorney Hosmer
on the stand. Mr.. Hosmer's method of
summing up the case for the prose2r-
tion was in great variance to the
threatening and cajoling efforts of At
torneys Knight and MCGOWAN for the
defense Mr.. Hosmer was cool and coll
lected throughout. He modulated his
voice to a nicely, and seldom spoke
passionately.
The curious crowd that gathered in
the court room expecting to hear Mrs.
Botkin griddled were in a measure sat
isfied, but it was Mrs. Botk;n's after
neys and their methods in the conduct
of the case that Mr. Hosmer made the
,,oip+ Of h ic
Mr. Hosmer commenced his argu-
ment with the incidents attending the
arrival of the package Of candy at Do
yer, Del, Postoffice. He condemned
the defense for insinuating that the
package might have been placed in the
mail bag by anyone connecued with the
Postoffice. He accused the attorneys
for going behind the facts. He traced
the package to the Pennington home
and its delivery to unsuspecting Mrs.
Dunning and the passing of the bon
bcns to the gathered guests, their sick
ness and the death of Mrs. Dunning and
her sister.
Mr.. Hosmer deftly pictured the grief
of the parents and friends of the Pen
nington and Dunning families, and con-
cluded with a. scathing attack upon the
po1soner. He took up the analysis of
the candy by Chemist Wolf of Dover,
Del, and Professor Price of this city.
He ridiculed the defense for its conten-
tions that members of the Police De-
partment or even the chemists them
selves. might have inserted the poison
tc make out a case He pointed out
that Chemist Wolf had found lump ar
senic, and that Profes sor Price had dis
covered the presence IF powdered ar
senic The defense, in argument, as
serted that only lump arsenic had been
found.
Mr.. Hosmer addressed the jury on the
rights of witnesses. He contended that
all witnesses were entitled to respect
and credit until disproved, and none of
the witnesses for the prosecution he
asserted had been proved untruthful.
The attorneys for the defense attacked
all the witnesses for the prosecution,
and introduced matters entirely irrele-
want to the case, in an attempt to be-
snirch and TO belittle their testimony
He attacked Attorney Knight partic-
ularly and characterized his efforts TO
free his client as dishonest and despic-
able He asserted that the attacks of
the defense had ended in naught; that
not one witness had been contradicted.
He then took up Mrs. Bot91in's testi-
mony. He showed that in spite of Mrs.
Botkin's statements and the assertions
Of the defense to the contrary, that the
woman had more than passing regard
for Dunning; that her life with him was
licentious and depraved. He pointed
TO Dunning's action in coming across
the continent to prosecute her, and as
serted that Dunning would not have
gone through what he had unless he
was certain of the guilt of Mrs. Bot
kin: that he would not have disclosed
their relations and been exposed to the
criticism of the newspapers and public
without just reason. He took up the
letter Of June II, 1897, which the de-
fense claimed had been mailed in this
CITY at the time Mrs. Botkin was re-
siding in Eureka, Cal The letter as
serted that Dunning was financially en-
harrassed, and that the woman with
whom Dunning was infatuated was a
divorced woman. He proved by Mrs.
Rotkin's own testimony that she and
T,unning alone knew of his financial
condition. and showed by the testimony
of Dunning that Mrs. Botkin had told