New-York tribune., 1899-04-13
IN FAVOR OF MOLINEUX.
JUSTICE WILLIAMS SETS ASIDE THE
INDICTMENT.
THE DECISION BASED ON THE USE MADE
OF THE HANDWRITING SPECIMENS
AND THE BARNET LETTERS.


AND THE BARNET LETTERS.
Watertown, n. Y. April 12.-Justice Pardon
c. Williams tonight handed down his decision
on the motion made to discharge the Indictment
against Roland B. Molineux, charged with send
ing poison to Harry Cornish, which caused the
death Of Mrs Kate J. Adams. Justice Williams
dismisses the indictment on the ground that
other than legal evidence was received and con-
. sidered by the Grand Jury, and directs that the
case he resubmitted to the Grand Jury now slt-
ting or to the next Grand Jury that shall sit IN
New-York County. In part the opinion Is as
follows:
The minutes OF the Grand Jury show that evil
dence was given by the witness Cornish which
would not have been permitted by the Court
relating to the relations between himself and
the defendant, which only important on the
question of motive. Inasmuch the evidence
given before the Coroner by the defendant, and
which was before the Grand Jury. showed that
unfriendy relations existed between the parties.
it would not seem that the evidence Of Cornish
which is objected to could have had any ma
tera influence with the Grand Jury.
More serious questions are raised by the claim
made by the defendant that all evidence before
the Grand Jury by handwriting experts. based
upon comparison of the disputed handwriting
with alleged genuine handwriting Of the de-
fendant and genuine handwriting. was illegal
and improper
Justice Williams then discusses the statutory
provisions to comparisons Of disputed hand
writings. and cites the act of 1880 as amended
by the act Of 1888 which provides under what
circumstances comparisons of handwritings can
be allowed. He calls particular attention to the
words which allow "a comparison of disputed
writing with any writing proved to the satisfac-
ton Of the Court to be genuine
In this case the purpose OF the proof was to
show that the defendant wrote the addresses
on the poison package. He holds that there was
clearly a disputed writing before the Grand
Jury within the meaning of the statute. to wit,
the address the poison package. Further
Justice Williams says on this point:
I cannot believe the Legislature intended to
limit the rule Of evidence to trials as distin-
gushed from other legal hearings where evil
dence is TO be given. Can It be possible the
Legislature provided for species Of evidence
upon the trial of a person for crime ana yet
intended to prevent the usage Of the same spe-
cies before a Grand Jury? 1t seems to me not.
This species OF evidence is coming 10 be regard
ed as Of greater value than the evidence or per-
sons who speak alone from their own personal
knowledge OF the handwriting of others. l 90
not refer so much TO the mere opinions OF ex-
pertS based upon comparisons as 10 tne redSoHS
they may give for such opinion.
In of this kind, where some one has
prepared a bottle OF poison and addressed 1t TO
another and has deposited it in the postoftice
and death has resulted from taking the poison,
when the person preparing and sending the
poison has done this work where no human
eye looked on to see him do it, and when no
comparison is made by any one, II Is or the
utmost Importance that there should, IL pos
sible. be identification Of the handwriting
OF the address upon the poison package.
/, Justice williams holds that the exhibits OF
handwriting could not be used as standards for
comparisons with the address on the poison
package. because they were themselves disputed
and further that they were not competent for
any other purpose than as standards OF COM
PARSONS OF handwritngs.
In closing the Justice holds that the Barnet
letters were improper. tending TO show the
defendants connection with the alleged murder
Of Barnet as we'll as that of Mrs. Adams, and
! the Grand Jury might we'll have been influenced
by the suggestion growing out Of the letters that
he was guilty Of that murder well as Of the
one being investigated. The opinion concludes
as follows:
IL seems to me under all the circumstances
! I cannot do otherwise than discharge this in
! dictment The defendant is entitled to have his
| case Investigated upon legal evidence and nc
| other. The people may present their case 70
| another Grand Jury, being careful to use only
! evidence, and then the determination OF the
! Grand Jury will be binding upon every one. II
another indictment is found the defendant VIII
| have 10 stand his trial II he Is not indicted
he will be entitled to his discharge from GUS
| tody.