The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-20
NEW 0RDEALFOR MOLlNEUX
mrs CASE ORDERED FOR THIRD
TIME BkFORE 4 GRAND JURY.


May Grand Jury In Open Court, and Col.
Church, Its Foreman, Replies with
Categorical Contradiction of osborne.
In pursuance OF an order OF Justice Furs-
man OF tho Supreme Court. the Gaze OF Roland
Il. Molneux. charged with the murder OF Mrs
Katherine j. Adams. will DO submitted to the
Grand Jury to be sworn'in on the first Mon
day In July. Justice Fursnan had. on the
motion OF Assistant District Attorney Osborne
ordered MolineuXs counsel to show cause yes
tcrday why Justice Fursman should not order
the case to be resubmitted On the return OF
the order Mr.. Osborne renewed his attack up
on Col William c. Church. the foreman Of the
May Grand Jury. and upon other mem beers OF
the May Grand Jury. charging that they were
Influenced Improperly. Mr. Osborne said:
The Judge in Part |. OF the General Sessions
and want 1t understood ut the outset that
do not'want to cr!ticiss him-said in.hs charge
that the case should be first submitted to
Magistrate, naming exceptions TO the rule
Now, the case against Mollneux did not como
within any OF these executions OF the Judge.
who further said the system Of submitting cases
to Magistrates was a wise and we'll ordered
system. which should not be departed from
save for good and sufficient reasons The
Grand Jury had two things 10 do-to find an
Indictment and shatter this well ordered sys.
ten. or TO dismiss the indictment. Under
the charge tho only thing to be done was to
obey the Court and find no indictment We
made an Infinitely stronger case than before the
first Grand Jury. and | would be willing to
have your Honor look into the exhibits for
feel sure you would In few minutes decide
that the defendant is guilty. The District At
torney discovered that the foreman was put
ting questions calculated not to End Moi-
neux guilty but having a direct tendency to
show that Mrs. Rogers and Harry Cornish en-
tered into a CONSPIRACY. These questions were
irrelevant and the District Attorney told the
foreman that he could not take UP two cases at
once. The foreman then told me he had de-
cded not to take up tho case against Mol-
nsuX until had proved Cornish not guilty"
Lawyer Weeks at this point interrupted Mr..
Osborne to deny the prosecuting attorneys
statements. He said that Col Church. the
foreman Of the Grand Jury. absolutely denied
that ne had told Osborne that he had decided
not to take up the case against Molinsux until
Osborne had proved Cornish not guilty.
Mr. Osborne said that he would stand by the
solemn oath he had made. His affidavit on
4 10 with the court set forth wha. he had stated
He could prove everything he said in his af.
fdavit by assistant District Attorney Unger
and also By tho offlcial:record
Lawyer Weeks said that Col. Church had
made anSaffldavit denying Osborne's state
hdavit with the court.
Mr.. Osborne. again declared that the Grand
Jury for May did not try to- collect evidence
against. Molineux. but seemed anxious to ex-
onerate. him.
Why" said Mr.. Osborne. that Grand Jury
went into open court for instructions and asked
II 1t could determine who was responsible for
the crime or IL 1t was limited to one person.
The Judge said the Grand Jury must take UP
the case as the District Attorney directed.
Then the foreman asked for advice as to what
questions might be put to witnesses That was
because l had told him he must not take up
hearsay evidence against Cornish. Then
tons and answers loft at the mouse OF col,
the work OF a reporter 1t must have CON
tanned much that must have influenced the
tho sa N
oners minutes left by some man. but know
better Ono Of ths To-, answer. in the y p age is
that auarrsls In her family had been frequent
Ten pages Of paper 60 on in this this way statine
and Cornish were guilty. Ali this shows that
the mind Of the foreman.and I do not say
rated with the idea OF conspiracy between Cor
nish and Mrs Rogers and thai the entire
week. dscasd Ss Was no
stated; He said It wes an outrage for the DIS;
'"f sn fn ees is opposed to such pub
torney with a Grand jury" said Mr.. Weeks.
II Grand Jury,cannot consult with Dis
the Bst coming int
making affidavits about that connection then
there can be no:prveRed relations between
District Attorney and Grand Jury. It Is q
minutes public unless by an order Of the court.
torney to- get these minutes and make them
public ina minor case as was done In the as
eweI to the affidavit and statements made
dayit Of Col. Church. the foreman Of the May
placed on flle with the Clerk Of the Court.
am om By 3eey hay.
SECTION the he ntos
OF the Supreme Court before whom q motion
Gsna e.. 'SE the :SI nj
action. to make disclosure OF certain matters
,S &aS
and against me as It's foreman contained In an
Assistant District Attorney verified June is.
1899. upon which said motion was, made.
Complying with this requirement. this AMI
= was foreman Of the G Iansl jury Of this
G ' Of sf Three nad
Juries and am familiar, with The course of pro.
cedure before such bodies. The examination
by the May Grand Jury ir the case Of the Peo-
pie against M olineuX was thorough. careful.
exhaustive and impartial. 1t was conducted
throughout in the presence OF The Assistant
District Attorney, who examined all witnesses
and was given full opportunity to ask all Ques-
tions he desired, The Assistant District At
torney was asked specifically by the foreman
Of the Grand Jury at the close OF the inquiry
whether he had any further testimony TO offer
and answered in The negative. No question
answer to which the Assistant District At
tornoy objected was Permitted to remain on
the record. but all such were ordered tricken
our Immediately ON such objection.
AT the request OF the Grand Jury the fore
man applied to the court for the name Of some
Expert in handwriting not included among tho
Witnesses named by the District Attorney;
he was: handed the.name OF Mr., Carvalho. with
tho information that he had been for many
Attorney and Mr., Carvalho, was called only
because OF tho approval by the court OF this
action on the part Of the Grand Jury,
"ldtd have. during the progress OF the inves'
tgation. a synopsis Of portion OF the testi-
mOny taken at the Coroner's inquest. This
document was not presented to the Grand
Jury and no IprtOn of IN was read to them, L.