The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-12-31
GUILTY OF MURDER
IN THE FIRST DEGREE
PUNISHMENT FIXED AT IMPRISON-
MENT FOR THE PERIOD OF
NATURAL LIFE
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
WERE CONVINCING

Attorney Hosner Maintained a Dig
nified Tome That Appealed to the
Jury So Strongly That Mrs. Rot
ktn's Lawyer Objected to Such
Line of Observation-Disclosures waS
In State of Collapse at Finish.
SAN FRANCISCO, Dee. 30-Mrs.
Cordelia Botkin was. tonight. found
guilty Of murder in the first degree for
causing the death of Mrs. Jane Dunn
ing, by sending a box of poisoned
candy to her temporary home in Dover.
Del. The condemned murderess will
be spared an ignominous death on the
galloWs, however. the jury that found
her guilty imposing also a penalty of
life Imprisonment. The verdict was
unexpected. An acquittal was con-
hdently awaited by the defense, while
the prosecution feared a disagreement.
Considering the uneXpectedness Of
the verdict Mrs. Botlxin 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 evidence Of
collapse. Then she sat back half- faint
ing, but speedily revived when given a
glass Of water.
The jury retired at $50 p m. 1t is
not known how many ballots were TAX
en- before final agreement was reach
ed, but there are rumors that at first
the opinions Of the twelve jurymen
were not In accord and that before
unanimity was arrived at a comprom-
ise was necessary.
Just before o'clock word was sent
to Judge Cook that the jury was pre-
pared to make a report. Court was
Immediately convened, and at 9:15 the
jury stated, through its foreman, that
verdict had been reached, the verdict
being that Mrs. Botkin, accused Of kill
ing Mrs. John P. Dunning by means
Of poisoned candy, sent through the
| mails, was guilty of murder in the first
degree. In accordance with the laws
Of California, which empower the jury
to decide between hanging and impris-
onment for life, the penalty was fixed
az imprisonment for life.
CLOSE FOR PROSECUTION.
| closed with District Attorney Hosmer
| on the stand. Mr.. Hosmer's method OF
summing up the case for the prosecu-
| ti0n was in great variance to the
! threatening. cajoling efforts of Attor-
ney Knight and MCGOWAN for the de-
! fense. Mr.. Hosmer was cool and col
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
q measure disappointed, but it was
Mrs Botkin's attorneys and their
methods in the conduct of the case
/ that Mr. Hosmer made the principal
point Of his attack. Mr.. Hosmer com
menced his argument with the incl
dents attending the arrival of the
package of candy at the Dover, Del
| postoffice. He condemned the defense
for insinuating that the package might
have been placed in the mail bag by
any one connected with the postoffice
He accused the attorneys Of going be-
hind the facts. He traced the packa ge
| to the Pennington home, and it's de.
| livery to the unsuspecting Mrs. Dun
ming and the passing Of the bon bons
to other guests, their sickness and the
death Of Mrs. Dunning and her sister
Mr.. Hosmer deftly pictured the grie1
OF the parents ard friends of the Pen.
n1ngton and Dunning families, anG
concluded with a scathing attack upor
the poisoner. He took up the analyst.
of the candy by Chemist Wolff. ot
Dover, Del, and Prof Price. of this
city. He ridiculed the defense for its
contentious that members Of the DO.
lice department in this city or ever
the chemists themselves might have in.
serted the poison to make out a case
He pointed out that Chemist Wolf
had found lump arsenic and that DR.
Price had discovered the presence O.
powdered arsenic. The defense in al.
gument asserted that only lump arsenic
had been found.
WITNESSES DEFENDED.
Mr.. Hosmer addressed the jury OF
the rights Of witnesses. He contendef
that all witnesses were entitled to re-
spect and credit until disproved, and
none Of the witnesses for the prose
cution, he asserted. had been proved
untruthful. The attorneys for the de
tense attacked all the witnesses fo
the prosecution and introduced matter
entirely irrelevant to the case in n,
attempt to besmirch and to belittI,
their testimony. He attacked Attor
ney Knight particularly, and charac G.
terized his efforts to free his client q.
dishonest and despicable. He asserted
that the attacks of the defense hac
ended in naught-that not one witness
had been contra dicted.
He then took up Mrs Botkin's testi
mony. He showed that, In spite of Mrs
Botkin's statements and the assertions
of the defense to the contrary. tn,
woman had more than a passing regard
for Dunning; that her life with hin
was licent:ous and depraved He point
ed to Dunning's action in comins
across the continent to prosecute her
and asserted that Dunning would no
have gone through what he had unles.
he was certain of the guilt Of Mrs
Bctkin, that he would not have dis
closed their relations and been exposed
to the criticism of the newspapers anC
public without just reason He tool
up the letter Of June IL, 1897, whicl