The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-16
Circulation Statement.
Points in the MoIIneux Case.


ing a new trial in the AIolineux case.
the New York Court Of Appeals dealt
COMPREHENSIVE with the question of
expert testimony on the subject of
handwriting. Stated broadly and sim
ply, the court held that the writing in
dispute might be compared with other
writings proved or admitted to have
been those of a certain individual, say.
MolineUX in this case. and upon the
basis OF such comparison experts might
give their opinion as to whether the
same person was the author of both.
Probably this will have To be accept
ed as a correct statement Of the law,
but il viii not change the opinions Of
those who believe such testimony to
be lacking in the certainty which
should characterize the evidence
against a man who is on trial for his
lie. The objection to it is particularly
strong when the question Of the hand
writing has close and important CON
nection with the murder. In this case
5 package containing the poison which
caused the death was sent through the
mail. The address was claimed to be
In MOlineux's handwriting, and experts
were permitted 70 express the opinion
that ne wrote it. their opinion being
formed by comparing the address with
other writings known to be his. The
Importance Of this point viii be seen
at a glance. II MolineUX wrote the ad-
dress. il was very strong evidence Of
guilt although Of course it might not
be conclusive.
But in this connection the court also
held that ii was not competent to make
the comparisons with other writings
unconnected with the case which in
their nature tended to prejudice the de-
PENDANT In this respect tn prosecution
erred most glaringly. Letters were in
troduced which tended to connect Moli-
neuN with another crime Of a similar
character, and the experts were per
mitted to compare these letters with
the address upon the package contain
ing the poison The error was a double
one: First, the evidence connected
Molneux with another crime with
which ne had not been charged. thus
creating a prejudice against him In the
minds Of the jurors. and secondly. it
&c handwriting. The introduction Of
such evidence assumed that Molineux
had previously poisoned a man named
Barnet, and therefore was guilty Of the
murder Of Mrs Adams: whereas, the
defendant had never even been charg-
ed with the murder OF Barnet, much
less convicted. Upon this point the de
cisiOn was in MolineUxs favor by a ma
iOrity vote only, but it seems To be
well supported in reason
But the prosecution did not stop even
here. While the man Barnet was upon
his sick bed he stated TO his physicians
that ne had received a package Of Kut-
now powder through the mail. The
physicians were permitted TO testify TO
this statement made by Barnet TO
them II was the baldest kind Of hear
say" and the wonder is how any pros
ecuting attorney of fair intelligence
could be willing TO Jeopardize the case
on appeal by Offering such testimony.
Equally strange is 1t that any fair and
impartial court should have admitted
it. The Appellate Court was unani-
nous IL holding it 10 be error. Indeed.
established rule Of evidence. that il
gives strong color 10 the prisoners
claim that neither the prosecution nor
the court was disposed TO allow him a
fair trial This was one Of the points
on appeal. but II was not passed upon
The case being reversed upon other
grounds II was held TO be unnecessary
II looks. though. as IL the Appellate
Court thought there might be some
thing IN the point. for if the record
failed To disclose unfairness. d state
ment to that effect would have been
both easy and natural
In every way this decision is q most
important one. Aside from the nature
Of the questions decided. the status Of
the case is now such as 10 make an
other conviction extremely doubtful.
and there is a possibility that il may
not even be tried again