The San Francisco call., 1898-12-31

der that thelr verdict SnOulQ De III dc- cordance with the law and the testi- mony they must understand the prin- ciples of the law. It was for the pur- pose of instructing them in this regard that he addressed them at that time. He said any error of his would be re- viewed by the Supreme Court.
 With questions of fact and weight of testimony the court had nothing to do; those were matters for them to deter mine. He warned them not to con- slider any evidence that had been stricken out. They must not consider the argument, comment or suggestion of counsel as evidence. He then read the suggestions made by the defend ants counsel to be incorporated in the charge
 He told them that if any witness had sworn falsely they must discard all the testimony of that witness as not worthy of Credence. He dwelt on the fact of the burden of proof resting on the peo- pie, and that their case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If two instructions could be placed on any testimony-one of innocence, the other of guilt-they must place upon it the
 
 duty of the prosecution to overcome all presumptions of innocence.
 The evidence of the experts should be received with great caution. It is ad- missible in certain cases and is entitled to be considered. He urged them to form an opinion of their own after per sonal examination. In the considera- tion of the case they were not to be swayed by sentiment sympathy, pas sion nor prejudice.
 As to the anonymous letter post marked in this city when Mrs. Botkin was in Eureka, he said the presump- tion under the law was that the latter had been deposited here and that such presumption cannot be overcome unless by evidence to the contrary. They can not act on surmise or suspicion.
 The first thing they were to ascer- tain beyond a reasonable doubt was whether the deaths of the two women were brought about by arsenical pois- OninE. This must be determined be- yond reasonable doubt. either by the result of the autopsy or by other com petent evidence This must be done to a moral certainty. If there is any doubt as to the cause the defendant must be acquitted.
 They must not take into considera- tion her personal relations with Dun- ming, and if the motive was not shown they must consider it in making their verdict. If certain circumstances could be proved either way they carried no weight and should not be considered If the reasonable doubt existed it was their duty to acquit. They must not be guided by the preponderance of tes- timony, but must have more convinc- ing reasons.
 The court dwelt at length on the mat ter of reasonable doubt, saying if that existed they must acquit the defend ant. The evidence presented them was not to be weighed in an arbitrary man. ner, but under the carefully drawn laws that govern evidence. The de- fendant was always entitled to the presumption of innocence, and if the reasonable doubt existed she must be acquitted. The moral certainty. how ever. was all that the law required. First it must be proved that a crime had been committed, and then it must be proved the defendant did it.
 He then quoted the words of Judge Murphy on the question of motive for crime and devoted some time to a dis cussion of direct or positive evidence. CirCumstantial evidence was the basis of the present trial and if proved was just as good as direct evidence, as all evidence was more or less circumstan- tial. If the circumstantial evidence was proved they must find her guilty.
 In closing Judge Cook cOunseled them that the enforcement of law was the safeguard of society. That they had duty to perform both to the defendant and to the public. He asked them not to be swayed by sentiment, but to be faithful and just.
 When the jury retired to deliberate Mrs. Botllin went from the courtroom to the office of Sheriff Whelan. She was accompanied by her relatives and seemed unconcerned over her fate. She made herself comfortable near the fire and after a discussion of the events of the day asked for some coffee and toast. While she was disposing of this her sisters went to a nearby restaurant for dinner.
 Long before 7:3O they were ready to return to the court room The crowd gathered slowly. Apparently few knew the case had gone to the jury.
 Mrs. Botkin was by far the most un- concerned member of her little party. She chatted gayly with Brother -in-Law Robarts, and together they discussed the contents of the evening papers. She did not shield her face with the heavy black veil that in the past had con- cealed the play of her features. The harsh light from the huge chandelier suspended above her head brought all the lines of her heavy face out in strong relief. The lines about the mouth have been accentuated from the ordeal through which she has gone, and in truth she has passed her youth, as she told her husband when she declined to divorce him.
 The wait semed to hang more heavily on her sisters than on herself They sat somewhat apart from her and gazed in open mouthed wonder at this remark able woman who gives no facial hints that she is of their flesh and blood The