New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-11
MOLINEUX NOT THE MAN.
MISS MILLER POSITIVE HE DID NOT BUY
THE BOTTLE HOLDER.
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDER
AND MR.. OsBORNE-CREsCENT
PAPER AGAIN
PAPER AGAIN.


PAPER AGAIN
Miss Emma Miller, the young saleswoman
who, December 21 1898 was employed by
the Newark jewelry store where the silver bot
tie holder which was inclosed in the poison pack
age sent to Cornish purchased. was the
principal witness yesterday in the continued
trial Of Roland B. Molineux Much depended on
her testimony. Should she identify Molineux
as the man to whom she sold the bottle holder
his fate seemed certain. Should she testify
otherwise, the prosecution would be unable to
forge most important and erninently neces-
sary missing link in its chain of circumstantiaI
evidence.
Miss Miers evidence was in favor of the
defendant She adhered to the statement she
has made from the outset that Molineux was
not the man who purchased the holder from her
She asserted that yesterday positively and
without qualification. BY all the legal arts that
he could employ Mr.. Osborne, without the least
success, tried to shake Miss Miller's positive
attitude. He bombarded the witness with ques-
ttons tending to bring out discrepancies between
statements she has made from time to time to
newspaper reporters and to police officials: he
attacked her credibility; he endeavored to show
that, as result of interviews with Mr.. Weeks,
her mind was biassed when she subsequently
confronted with Molineux, and finally he even
for the prosecution.
WITNESS DID NOT GIVE WAY.
All was without avail Miss Miller, although
frequently incensed at some of the questions
which Mr.. Osborne put to her, and seemed often
on the verge of losing her temper. never once
allowed herself TO be moved from the emphatic
declaration that MolineuX was not the
Although she admitted to the Recorder that she
vVba Tho tha
who bought the silver holder if he brought
before her after this lapse of time, she still
fidently declared that it not the defendant
to whom she sold the fateful holder.
When the trial was resumed yesterday morn
ing the first witness called was Charles Jacobs,
of the firm Of Jacobs &, Co He acknowledged
signing the letter headed with the name of his
firm, which Rudolph Heiles swore he wrote at
the dictation OF Molineux to Stearns & Co., of
Detroit This letter, it may be remembered
sent Stearns & Co inquiring to the
integrity of A. A. Harpster Mr.. Jacobs said he
signed the letter at the request of his friend
Heiles. without having the least knowledge of
its contents purport.
Mr.. Weeks did not cross examine. and Gustav
Kutnow, of the firm of Kutnow Brothers, took
the stand In the course of his testimony Mr.
Kutnow said that the powder bearing his name
sent out in tin boxes for samples and in
bottles MIR. Kutnow said, corl1ed, sealed
and capped and could not be opened without
destroying the seals and the cappings but the
sample boxes could be opened by merely remov-
ing the tin lid. It was this kind of tin box
which was sent to Barnet, and it is alleged by
the prosecution that the box opened and
the contents mixed with an extraneous sub
stance.
III. CORNISH" LETTER IDENTIFIED.
The witness identified a letter signed N. Cor
nish,' which had been sent to the Kutnow firm
asking for sample box. The Importance of
this letter is that it is written on the egg blue
paper with three interlaced crescents, similar
TO the paper which Miss Meando swore she
in Moneux's rooms In the Newark paint
factory. In cross examination Mr.. Weeks drew
attention to the fact that upon the letter was
written two lines in lead pencil. which read:
Received Dec 90. 1898" Mr.. Weeks pointed
out that the "22'' looked as if it had been writ
ten over. The witness could not explain the
matter but Detective Sergeant Herlihy, who
followed Mr.. Kutnow to the stand, testified that
the two lines referred to were written by him,
that he made a mistake. rubbed the out
and then wrote the % over 1t.
Availing himself OF the detectives presence
on the stand, Mr.. Weeks asked the witness
about the Whiting company. which manufact-
on the ground that Herlihy could only give
hearsay testimony the point and that the
proper thing to do would be to call representa-
tives of the Whiting company. wrangle fol-
lowed between counsel and Mr.. Weeks did not
insist his question being answered.
MISS MILLER CALLED.
Emma Miller was the next witness, and as Mr..
Osborne called her name of subdued ex-
citement swept the courtroom. Since the
beginning OF the week every had been wait
ing to hear her description of the mysterious
sandy bearded individual to whom she said she
sold the silver bottle holder. Miss Miller is
about twenty five years old, of sharply chiselled
features tall, slender, with blue eyes and light
brown hair. Although somewhat nervous on the
stand and speaking in voice that could be
heard only a few yards away, she was at ali
times perfectly self possessed. Miss Miller iden-
tilted the bottle holder which she sold on De
cember 21 1898 at the store of Hartdegen &
Co. of Newark. The ceilings OF the store. she
said were low and dark days in December
It was customary to have the store lighted with
electric lights She testified that Archibald Ar
mold was employed by Hartdegen, and that
ended Mr. Osborne's direct examination. Not a
question was asked by him as to the identity of |
the man who bought the holder.
In beginning his cross-examination Mr.. Weeks |
asked the time at which she sold the holder. She
replied that il was about o'clock. and that the
Incandescent lights were turned The time at |
which the holder was sold is an important factor
In the case for the reason that the defence Will |