New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-11
egree. And if satisfied that he is guilty in that


either capriciously or arbitrarily. Whatever
verdict they find must be in accordance with
the proof of the case and with their BELIEF OF
it's force.
Before proceeding to consideration of any OF
the testimony and in order to avoid confusion
of ideas. 1t is necessary that you should have
the definite. the knowledge of facts or
groups of facts which must be proven to your
satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt be-
fore verdict of guilty against this defendant
be rendered. These facts are:
First-That the defendant directed and sent TO
Cornish through the mails a package which he
knew to contain a deadly poison.
Second-That he directed and sent the pack
age with the deliberate and premeditated de-
sign to cause the death of Cornish.
Third-That Cornish received the package ana
subsequently gave portion of its contents to
Mrs. Katherine j. Adams.
Fourth-That Mrs. Katherine j. Adams drank
in diluted form the portion so given, that II
contained poison sufficient to destroy human
life, that she died from the effects of such
poison, and that her death due to no other
cause-that her death was not due to any nat
ural cause.
If these four propositions be proven to your
satisfaction by the prosecution beyond rea1
sonable doubt. you are to- render verdict or
guilty of murder in the first degree against this
defendant. But if they be not proven to your
satisfaction and beyond reasonable doubt you
to render a verdict of not guilty in his favor
Here it Is quite natural that you Will ask the
question. which l will put into form for you IN
order that my instructions will be made more
clear Assuming that the defendant sent the
poison to Cornish with the intent to Kill him.
there is no evidence that he intended 1t to be
given to Mrs. Adams for the purpose Of taking
her life. How then he be held responsible
for the death of Mrs. Adams. whom he did not
intend to kill, while the man whom he did In
tend to kill is living?
CRIMINAL. INTENT THE TEST.
Now to that question. which L think l
fairly assume is in the mind of each and every
one of you gentlemen and it is a most important
one in this case, 1 will answer that, If the de-
PENDANT sent the poison to Cornish with intent
to Kill him, and Cornish gave the poison to Mrs
Adams in the manner described and as result
she died of that poison, the defendant is re-
sponsible for her death the same as IL he had
originally sent the poison to her and intended
to kill her and it makes no difference whether
Cornish be living or not. The intents of the case
are sufficient to constitute the crime. The test,
gentlemen, is the criminal intent at the time the
act is done AND if that intent was to destroy
the life of a human being by particular means.
and that means afterward caused the death of
another person than the one intended, murder is
committed the same if the intended victim
had taken the poison intended adopted the
means intended to be applied.
The design to effect the death of some one Is
essential There are other provisions of the
statute which have not read relating to killing
by acts of depravity and disregard of human
life. or while in the commission of felony, but in
either of those cases an intent to take life is
not necessary, though murder may be COM
mitted.
There is one great controlling question upon
which hinges this whole case. Did the de-
PENDANT direct and send the poison package to
Cornish?
If he did not, that disposes of all other ques-
tons. and he should be acquitted; but If, with
criminal intent, he directed and sent the pack
age of poison to Cornish and Mrs Adams par
took of 1t and died from it's effects then ne
should be convicted. If a man with intent to
Kill particular man fires at him and by mis-
take the bullet strikes and kills another person
against whom he has no i'll will ne commits
murder.
So if a man puts poison into fruit with the in
tent that a particular person against whom he
may have enmity shall eat it, and another per-
son should eat the fruit and die, against whom
he has no enmfty and whom he does not intend
to kill, the person who placed the poison in that
fruit is guilty of murder as If he intended to
XIII the person who actually did eat 1t. And
around that controlling question, which have
said the whole case hinged upon, centre all the
evidence, all the circumstances, all the subordi-
nate collateral facts or incidents which may
concentrate upon that question or radiate fIcm
1t. 1t all turns upon that
must impress you at the outset that the teS
timony Of experts in any department or branch
of science or art where special knowledge or
skill has been acquired is, under proper and
safe rules permitted by the law as legal evil
dence, to aid jury in arriving at a just YER
d1ct' II IL We're or no value or use Whatever the
law would not sanction It, because the law
never sanctions useless or prOftless things, and
the fact that the law sanctions its admission
before jury is a binding reason why it should
receive just and due consideration at the hands
of a jury and be weighed and valued by them
according as their good judgment deems it
worth.
In general. an expert may testify about char
acterlstics of handwriting in question to
whether the handwriting is natural or feigned
was or was not written at the same time. with
the same pen and ink and by the same person
ana as 10 alterations and eraSureS therein, and
as TO the age of handwriting end obscurities
therein, the result of his examination under the
magnifyinE glass and under circumstances
proved by certain standards of comparison, and
he may give reasons for his opinion. You
member gentlemen, that the standards of COM
parlsOn We're the writings which were conceded
by the defendant to be his writing that is
those exhibits running from No. l to No. II, in
elusive, / think. You remember those exhibits
Nos. ! TO Il. inclusive.
The first concession, if I remember correctly
on the part of the defendant to the genuine
ness of his writing was that of Exhibit No. .
the blue letter the Burns letter The purpose
of expert evidence is to aid the jury in their
deliberations in the case and in their review Of
the evidence.
Expert evidence is only entitled to just i'm
portanCe in arriving at judgment when fairly
TO give 1t through his experience, study and sci
entifC emnence. and upon the hypothesis. Shall
ii be true in relation of its parts to the whole
case which is the subject of inquiry? OF course,
the opinion of expert witnesses upon ques-
ton to which opinions may be properly EtN en-
in competent evidence. and it is to be considered
in deciding the question of fact; but whether
il will he received as sufficient proof depends
upon other circumstances than those to be re-
garded.
But in the case of an expert witness swearing
to what must necessarily he matter of
opinion his testimony is not necessarily and
finally to be accepted establishing the fact
Even If this defendant was the cause of Harry
G. BarnetS death by poison, that is no reason
why he should be found guilty OF the crime for
which he is on trial now. He must not. he can
not be found guilty of this crime unless you are
sa tisfed upon the evidence In this that he
Is guilty of it without regard to the Barnet case
If the testimony in relation to the Barnet case
shows trace indication of a particular kind
and If those traces or characteristics or traces
tifcation Of this man-this defendant on trial
then the testimony relating to the Barnet case
is material upon that point
The Recorder began his charge at lib a. M.