New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-01
FIGHTING FOR MOLINEUX
Mr. WEEKS ARGUES FOR A DISMISSAL
OF THE INDICTMENT.
DECLARES THAT IMPROPER TESTIMONY WAS
TAKEN BEFORE THE CORONER AND IL
LDGAl. MATTER SUBMITTED TO
THE GRAND JURY

THE GRAND JURY.
Argument on motion to dismiss the indictment
found against Roland Il. Mollneux for the murder
of Mrs Katherine J. Adams on December 2S 1895
was made yesterday morning in the Criminal
Branch Of the Supreme Court before Justice
Pardon C. Williams. Barlow 5. Weeks. Of Weeks
& Battle. appeared for the motion while District
Attorney Gardiner with his assistant, James w
Osborne appeared in opposition. MolineuX was not
present but his father. General Molineux, was
one OF tn, first in the courtroom
Before opening his argument Mr.. Weeks com
planned that the minutes Of the Grand Jury as
certified 10 by the stenographer were incomplete
He said tina, the minutes made no record OF the
presentation to the Grand Jury Of the evidence
given by Molineux at the CorOners inquest MT
Weeks said that he had prepared his brief on the
assumption that the minutes Of the Coroners IN
quest were never placed before the Grand Jury
for their consideration
The District-Attorney explained that transcripts
of Moneux's evidence were read 20 the Grand
Jury and marked as exhibits.
Mr. Weeks appealed to the Court that II the
stenographer Of the Grand Jury was entitled 10
certify 10 incorrect minutes it was impossible for
the defendan, to know what had been presented
TO the Grand Jury.
Mr. Weeks said that II the District-Attorney
would state his intentions with regard 70 those
transcripts he would be satisfied Mr.. Gardiner In
terrupted TO say that the transcripts Of Molneuxs
testimony was taken before the Grand Jury and
out the minutes.
His contention" said Justice Williams. is that
the records do not show tina. fact"
II told him he could have all The exhibits said
Mr.. Gardiner.
''You don't seem 10 understand" said the Court.
'Tf YOU claim those transcripts were offered in evil
dence 10 the Grand Jury the record Of the proceed
tnes before the Grand Jury should show IT,"
Colonel Gardiner said nothing. and Mr. Weeks
asked him: Were those minutes before the Grand
Jury"
we will let you know later" said Mr.. Gardiner.
81 want to know before 7 make my argument
said Mr.. Weeks.
He is entitled to know" rued the Court
Mr. Osborne made statement Of what had oc-
CURED before the Grand Jury. and SAID that MS
afidavt and a statement from the s'enoeraphtl
who took everything before the Coroner would
make the record complete II had no idea. he
said that counsel wanted 10 take technical ad-
vantage OF IT..
I'VE are not taking a technical advantage" re-
torted Mr.. Weeks. We are demanding our honest
rights
"A subterfuge" interrupted Mr.. Gardiner.
MAY ask the Court 10 protect counsel against
these unjustfable attacks" said MI Weeks
I'VE will have no personalities here. Mr. District
Attorney" said Justice Williams sternly.
Mr. Gardiner subsidized. and Mr. Weeks continued
his demand for those portions Of the minutes of The
Coroner's inquest that presented 10 the Grand
Jury Mr. Gardiner said he would send for them
and then Mr. Weeks began his argument He
pointed out the fact that March p notice or mo-
ton was made and served on the District-Attorney
for an order qua shrg dismissing and setting aside
the Indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury
received other than legal evidence. and that the
Indictment found on insufficient evidence
Mr. Weeks stated that March % the District
Attorney. without notice to the defendant. had pro
cured an order removing the indictment from the
Court OF General Sessions into the Supreme Court.
II was necessary to make new and similar mo-
ton in the Supreme Court. on March IS an order
was procured from Justice Williams to show cause
in the Criminal Branch of the Supreme Court on
March 81 why the indictment should not he
quashed
He then reviewed tho history of the evidence
submitted 10 the Coroner. declaring that much Of
II Illegal
Mr. Weeks further maintained that the testi-
mony of the defendant before the Coroner related
largely TO extraneous immaterial and irrelevant
subjects. and therefore the Introduction of his
testimony on these points was illegal Here Ny.
Weeks referred 10 the death Of Henry G. Barnet.
The testimony of the defendant on these points If
read to the Grand Jury must have confused Ih me
them 10 believe that the defendant was implicated
in the death Of Barnet The District Attorney IN
his address to the Coroner's jury plainly charged
the defendant with having caused the death of
Barnet. and ascTibed his motive to jealousy Of
Barnet
All the testimony Of the defendant on this line,
clearly inadmissible before the Grand Jury. and
must have prejudced them in the highest degree.
with having caused the death Of Katherine J.
Adams. and any state nent OF the defendant as to
. the death OF Barnet clearly Illegal improper
and prejudicial evidence before the Grand Jury
Mr.. Weeks dld not finish his argument until l2:So
He said that he was greatly interested in the
e O. SooHrs "i nqS se f ad S6e Bs,rcA
torney, this defendant was present and his coun-
his oase % court has vet, to nv a"
overturned Indictment
received other than legal evidence where the legal
place in this case there Was murder shown and
secondly. before the Grand jury there oIin-
ions by highly reputable handwriting experts, who
might have been questioned by members Of the
jury. They also had an Inspection Of the EXHIBITS.
and came 70 the decision thai they were all written
by the same hand Mr. Kinsleey. a man Of high
defendant was the man that wrote the poison ac-
mony before the Coroner Justice Williams inter
rupted, and. addressing Mr.; Weeks. said:
you could have advised your client to refuse 10
answer questions before the Coroner"
On this point Mr. Weeks made q long argument,
declaring that the defendant forced TO testify.
as the District-Attorney had said ne would have
him committed for contempt i he did aid So Mr.
would show that he was not Officially present when
Disirct-Attorney Gardner then resumed his ar
gument He said he did not think II necessary 70
m max" ee m said he = am Informed fha While
prima- facic case has been made out before the
missed an Indictment for murder In the first de-
gree There evidence before the Grand Jury
that made them believe he guilty. ! will sub
init Your Honor the original exhibits and all
the minutes OF this case"
Colonel Gardiner said he would submit his brief
within day
Justice Williams. addressing the District-Auor-
ney said:
"There are questions here that demand consdera-
ton. One is 10 determine what evidence should he
taken before n Grand Jury and whether not
upon that evidence petty Jury would convict. II f.
not arbitrarily IN the province Of the Jurors
whether not conviction should be given but
the Court has power 10 decide whether not there
IS evidence enough TO warrant conviction. think.
Mr. Distrct-Attorney. YOU had better look into this
point Ny province is to n on tbs evidence I
would let this go 10 the jury. There
questions asked by the Grand Jurors that would not