The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1901-10-16
The Reversal Of the Molineu, Conviction.

The Reversal Of the Moiineux Conviction.
The Court Of Appeals at Albany yes
terday unanimously reversed the judg-
ment Of the trial court IN the case Of
RoLANpB MoLINEUX. who was convicted
in February, 1900, Of murder in the iirst
degree for poisoning Mrs KATHERINE
B. ADAMS with cyanide of mercury.
The trinl took place in the Court OF Cen
eral Sessions before Recorder Corr and
a jury, and from the judgment of con-
victon entered upon the verdict of
guilty an appeal was taken To- the
court Of last resort The case was
one Of extraordinary dramatic in
tcre-t unprecedented IN the criminal
annals of the State, because Of tho
guarded secrecy of the crime and the
morbid suggc-tiycnc-s Of some OF the
Ettcndin. circumstances, oven though
those matters were IN reality no part uf
the res gssi q and cXtrancouS 90 the his
| tory Of the murder. The poison, cyanide
Of mercury. was n rare poison, and one
which could have been compounded
hillN Nv u I'lT'l VI 'N'liA' 80 TNhh 'i'A
knowledge II was intended for a Mr..
CORNISH. to whom It had been sent 10y
mail IN u bottle ostenslbly of bromo-
%seltzcr. and the poisoned draught was
lnnocently handed by CORNISH To Mr.
ADAMS. the victim. who died Immediately
after drinking the poison At ths time Of
the trial of MOLINFUN. and Immediately
thereafter u was tn" opinion of many Of
tie best lawyers Of the state familiar
with criminal law that fatal errors had
been committed Iu tho adnissi'n ot IN
competent evidence, and since that Inn
It has always b VI opinion that the
Judgment of conviction should and must
be- reversed
The seven Judges of IN" Court of
Appeals who sat IN the ease. Chief Judge
PARkEH. and Associate Judges GRAY.
O.BKiEN. NANN. ~llAiGHT. BARTLETT
and WERNER agree unanimously IN
holding that the Judgment must be
reversed for two reasons First, because
the trial court erred m admitting IN
evidence the declarations Of u man
named Barnet mad" To- tNo physlcians.
Or PHILLIPS and Dr poJGLAs, that h"
had received kutnoN powders through
th. mail and. secondly. because the hand
writing experts VIII" testified against
MoLINtUX had been permitted to select
certain samples of writing as standards
of comparison and then To compare
them with the disputed writings alleged
To b. those ~ the accused
The evidence against MoLINLUX, like
that m most eases of poisoning. was
only circumstantial. and the prusecu-
ton. no; being satisfied with the legal
evidence which could bc addu,ed against
the prisoner, virtually put hun on trial
at the same TIM for the alleged COM
mission Of another and dlsilnc, murder.
HENrYC BARNET. with whom II appeared
that MoLINEUX had guarrclicd, had
died some months earlier az the hnlck-
erhockcr Athletic Club. and the theory
was evolved that he. too, had died 81
poisoning by the same drug, cyanide
of mercury. and that the poison had
been sent To- him hy MoLINEUX. In
suppur Of this theory the declarations
made by BAKNET To- the two physicians
were received IN evidence. and the
error IN thus admitting this manifcstly
incompetent evidence forms a prime
ground of reversal.
The testimony 81 handwriting o.
pcrts must always he restricted within
certain wcll-detncd limits and in the pro-
vailing opinion II the Court, written
bv Judge WERNFR. these limits ARE ably
and succinctly Indicated Tho Court
saws that under the statute Of 1870. ~
amended Ia tSSs. with the disputed
writings can 10 compared only such
other writings NJ arc proved 10 the salts
factipn Of the Court T. hv witnesses who
saw the paper written or to whom II was
Acknowledged. ~ by witnesses familiar
with tho handwriting Of the person
charged 10 hc the writer. 80 or where
the writing is shown to have been az
quic~Ccd Ia by the person or adopted and
acted upon by him in his business. The
Court condemns the admission solely
Tor comparison uf any writing other
wi~c preludiCial to tho defendant.
These restrictions on tine testimony of
handwriting experts, who have almost
riot ui rcccut wears. will h" received
with general satisfaction b. tho COM
nuniiy'
Ne now come To- the consideration
oi W" ono ground 81 reversal on which
nuly was there a division of opinion m
tho court the oar standing I 10 .
lrd that - the question whittier auy
evidence wa- admissible concerning the
killing 81 B,HNrr Evidence
hai h~~n reviewed on the trial tending
~ connc>t MoLINLUA with the murder