Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-03-28

been officially advised of the decision
of the Supreme Court OF California to
grant new trial to Mrs. Cordelia
& 'aBotkin, who was convicted of the
murder of Mrs, j. p. Dunniug and
Mrs. j. ID. 'Deane Of Dover, by sending
X poisoned candy through the mail, The
<piiicial notification to Mr.. Ward, which
8 WAS from Tiery i. Ford, attorney
igeneral Of California, was as follows:
vi Estate of California, Office OF At
(, ,tornsy General, San Francisco, March
Zig, 1901. = Hon. Herbert H. Ward,
~ Attorney- General, Dover, Delaware
IA Dear Sir: When / assumed my present
n office In the early part Of January, 1899.
N found several murder cases pending
on appeal In the Supreme Court Of this
N State, among which was the case OF
People vs.. Botkin, with which, /
Assume, you are somewhat familiar.
mong the cases which thus found
= Npending on appeal was one entitled
5zlPeoEle vs.. Hoff, a murder case, wherein
+ the court below bad instructed the jury
N at considerable length in respect to cir
81 numstantial evidence. Tho instruction
VI thus given in the Hoif CASE was given in
z identical language in the Botkin case
and also IN another celebrated murder
n case known as the Brandes case, all of
N which, as | have suggested. were pend
ing on appeal when assumed my
N present office. All Of these cases de-
n pended upon oiroumstantial evidence
and in each Of them conviction was
obtained in the trial court from which
the appeals in question were taken.
The Hoif case was first reached by the
Supreme Court, the judgment in which
was reversed and the case remauded for
new trial because of the giving of the
instruction upon circumstaDtial evil
dence above referred to. This in
struction had been previously given in
murder cases in this State and trial
courts were accustomed to give it In
all cases involving ciroumstantial
evidence. Knowing that il the Hoff
case were reversed, the Brandes and
Botkin cases would, of necessity; be
reversed also, petitioned the court for
a rehearing IN the Hoff use, which was
granted mo. l thereupon reargued the
case orally before the Supreme Court
sand filed written briefs therein. The
! court finally adhered to its earlier
/ ruliEg by yote Of four 10 three. our
oourt consisting OF seven Justices, four
OF whom sustained the earlier ruling
OF the court, while three of them
dissented and followed the rules
. WhiOh hhd DiC1bnlbu lily hTRu-
ment. 1t thus became apparent
that the Botkin case as we'll as the
Brandes case must go back for new
trial. In the Brandes case. there being
no question of jurisdiction, the judg-
A ment was at once reversed upon the
authority OF the Hoff case and the case
remHnded for new trial. In the Botkin
case, however, it was contended by
qounsel for appellant that the State Of
k]alifurnia had no jurisdiction to try
the cause. This contention combatted
and upon this point alone was the case
eubmitted in the Supreme Court, which
" tribunal on day before yesterday rem
K dared its decision in favor of the iuris-
diction of the State of California and
&bsreupon remapded the cause for
6Aw trial. This new trial will be under
{Ae auspices and supervision of the
d34trict attorney of the city OF San
Ffancisoo upon whom the law rlaoss
\. thiF duty. | know the district attorney
Is an xious to secure conviction in tho
CASE and would welcome any assistance
you might render him in the premises.
n. write you thus in order that you may
sNpB fully apIn lsed of the present situa-
xion to the end that you may take such
aters as you deem advisable in respect
M the matter The address of the dis
riot attorney OF this city is: Mr.. Lewis
E Byington, District Attorney, Hall of
jnstice, San Francisco, California.
= From the enclosed Clipping from
the San Francisco Examiner, OF March
l116th, 1901, l suspect that the surviving
felatives of the victims Of Mrs. Botkin
have gained an erroneous impression in
N respect to the official conduct of those
I 0ho have been charged with the prose-
oution OF Mrs. Botkin in this State.
This impression, If it exist, can assure
you is wholly and absolutely without
foundation. Very truly yours,
Tiery L. Ford,
Attorney General of California.
"a Attorney General Ward will get the
case, so far as he is concerned, in shane
Immediately, and will gather the evil
ience and send it to the California
authorities as SOON ss possible.
Following is the opinion Of the
California court, granting the new
trial, all the Justices conourring:
Defendant has been convicted of the
crime OF murder aud prosecutes this
appeal The charge OF the court given
70 the Jury upon the law, contained
declarations which were held to be-
unsound and constitute revei sible error,
IN People vs.. Vereneseneckock
La Odi., 4di. III view OF the decision
IN that case the attorney general con.
codes that the judgment should be
reversed ard the cause remanued to
i the trial court for further proceedings |;
but defendant claims that she is not
triable at all by the courts of this
4 State, and this contention should now
be passed upon; for if maintainable
second trial becomes a useless expendi-
ture of money, time and labor, and
neo. ssarily should not be had
For the purposes of testing this
claim of lack Of jurisdiction in the
y cuurts of California TO try defendant
the facts of this case may be deemed as
Y follows: Defendant, 10 the CITY ard
county OF San Francisco, State otCali-
fornia, sent by the United States mail
( to. Elizabeth Dunning OF Dover, Del,
box Of poisoned candy, with intent
that said Elizabeth DunnIng should
eat OF the candy and her death be
caused thereby. The candy was received
by the party to whom addressed, she
\ partook thereof. and her death was the
result. Upon these facts may the de-
fendant te charged aId tried for the
crime Of murder in the courts of the
State Of California? We do not find ii