Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-12-29
that p. a'yfell knew little il anything

OF arsenic.
John z. Dnnning was recalled b,
permission and asked il he had tolt
Mrs. Hotkin that his wife ..ad daughtoi
had taken up their residence in Dover,
Del He replied that he had men.
TONED tho fact several times.
Ihomns j. Ford OF the San Fran.
cisco postoffice, testified that the pack,
age, OF candy was not packed according
TO the rules and that it was remark,
able that the box should have reached
Deiaware in good order. He identified
| tho postmarks ON the anonymous letters
as being those of the San Francisco
Office, and described the methods en-
ployed IN caring for letter mails.
w. II. Roberts of Humboldt county,
brother-in-law of Mrs. Bo1kin, statec
that she bad been in the vicinity Of
Eureka, CAL, between June ID unit
the end Of the month. The prosecution
admitted this residence. 1t will be
remembered that one of the ANONYMOUS
letters was dated about the middle
of June, but the prosecution will proye
that mail bag was placed on the
wharf at Eureka on steamer DAYS. and
that letters dropped in it were not
postmarked until the steamer reached
this city.
John III. Washington, floor manager
OF the City of Paris store, where the
handkerchief sent Mrs. Dunning's
little. daughter was alleged to have
been bought, testified as to the methods
used in transferring purchases from
one department. to another and the
delivery of goods, but nothing of i'm
portance was brought out.
San Francisco, CAL, Dec. "a. The
trial Of Mrs. Cordelia Botkin is rapidly
dawing to close. The defence CON
cluded its case yesterday morning with
the testimony Of the defendant. Mrs.
Botkin denied specifically that she
bought the candy, the handkerchief or
the poison sent to Mrs. Dunning. She
admitted, however, an intimacy with
Dunning, but refused to say that her
relations with the latter were criminal
Her friendship, she said, was based
upon sympathy for Dunning, and not
upon love. She denied that she ever
intended to marry Dunning, but con
tended, on the other hand, that she
wished him to return to his wife and
child. Mrs. Botkin's cross-examina-
tion was brief. Mr.. Hosmer found
that she had prepared her story too
firmly to be shaken. He succeeded,
however, in forcing her to admit that
she was at the ferry. on the day the
poisoned candy was mailed to Mrs.
Dunning. Three unimportant wit
nesses were produced by the defence in
addition to the defendant.
did you ever ask Mrs. Rouff about
itheco$t Of mailing packages through
the postofiice?" Mrs. Botkin was asked
by George Knight, her attorney.
No, l never did. Ihave acted as q
local purchasing ngent for people living
in the interior, and therefore know all
about postage rates. Consequently,
! had no reason to ask Mrs. ARoUff
about that NATTER
Did yut ever make q purchase OF
arsenic in the Owl drug store2'
No, never lid. 4 never pur-
chased arsenic in my life.sn
:, = Did you mail the box Of candy
received by Mrs. Dunhing?"
III never did. y
Didlyou ever address Mr.. Dunning
as John Z. Dunning?' -
MOL always addressed him as j.
p. Dunning. I"
sssDid you ever attempt to prevent
Dunning from returning to his wife?n
a Certainty not, On tho contrary,
! often advised him to return to his
wife and child. .
After Mrs. Botkin had finished her
story she was sharply cross examined
by District Attorney Hosmer.
Didn't Dunning spend IL great deal
Of money upon your inquired. Hosmer.
mo, he didn't. AT first he did pay
for our pleasures, but after short
time was forced TO meet the bills.
He had no money after the first few
months OF our acquaintance, having
lost everything in designations. -
Mrs. Botkin answered Hosmer with
a great deul Of affectation. She main
tained y studied calmness at the he
ginning, but after time became rather
nervous. Dunning was an interested
listener to Mrs. Botkin's testimony.
His facial expressions told plainly that
he believed she was not telling the
truth.
Ibid you and Dunning live to-
"No; We occupied separate apart
ments ~,
u Hosnner put this question second
time and in q more direct form. Mrs
Botkin replied, rather apgrily, that
she had answered the question. Mrs.
Botkin went deeply into the details
of her trip to Healdsburg She was
prepared to ] go on from Healdsburg
to Stockton, where she was arrested,
but Hosiner did not permit her to
continue. .y
Returning to tho actions about the
date of the alleged murder, Mr.. Hos
mer asked her if she had ever been
in the City of Paris store. She re-
piled that she had, and within last
year.
Have you made purchases thcre?"
ssOh, yes; often"
Hosmer stopped here and for a
moment consulted with Attorney Gen.
eral. White of Delaware and Chief OF
Police Lees Then he surprised every
one in the court room by announcing
thut he had concluded his cross-ex-
animation,
ssHave any of the jurors desire
to psk Mrs. Botkin any questionsl'
asked Attorney Knight. The jury did
not want nny further information, how
ever, and SO asked no questions.
Cross brought out al
least one very important fact against
theiaccused. She admitted being at
the Ferry depot on the day that the
poisoned candy was mailed at the Ferry
postofiice.
THAT is our case, said Attorney
Knight Mr.. Hosmer then announced
that he could not produce his remain
ing witnesses until Tuesday morning,
and by congent Of fine defence the
case was continued until that time.
TO Test nm Improved Nozzle.