New-York tribune., 1901-11-15
MoLlNEUX CASE ARGUED.
~-GovERNoRS HILL AND BLACK IN
LEGAL BATTLE FOR AND AGAINST
orASHING THE INDICTMENT

-. sx-cove-nors OF this State pitted
..+,s- each other yesterday n the legal struggle
g 4,s4 Roland 2. MoHneux, convicted OF killing
- KATE : Adams with poison sent through the
- for Harry :. Cornish. and saved from the
Ia--,o chair BY the decision Of the Court Of Ap
80 setting aside the conviction the grounds
- evidence concerning the death Of Henry c.
- was improperly admitted and that errors
- made IN the handwriting testimony
E~cove-por Frank s. Black made the argument
-s.- <o- the cuashtng OF the indictment
- s-ound that the Barnet evidence was tnprop-
=. e,,h-nf1red 10 the grand jury Ex-Governor
Dsy,s 3 Hi, who represented the District Attor-
=, before the Court OF Appeals. opposed the mo-
- sn-ea-.nz with District Attorney PhNbin and
ssefs-s-t District Attorney Osborne who prose-
- -1e case before Recorder Gof. General E. L
N,iineux was accompanied by Frederick w DeVoe
o,d General Eorato c. King
~ courtroom was filed, and many in the corri
,5ors vainly sought admission Ex-Governor Black
smoke first Ee said ii part:
Z he Indictment IS based il whole or in part on
!So-2Derent and the Indictment cannot stand
ThIs case IS stuck fu!i o. experts, ana upon e1-
- MS Is The testimony object 10. and ask
70 & n7Ee hea-55S on tair legal and legitimate evi-
5eoce You have al the testimony OF these experts
Wrthaus based OF the examination Of Barnet,s
SOdy and w1P1ng all this EVIDENCE out you have not
4bs- he had trouble with Molineux-
Ex-Governor Black maintained that even If it
vas maintained as he denied. that legal evidence
had been submitted 10 the grand jury, il was so
-4xed with Illegal evidence TO render the indtct
-nent Illegal and invalid
F1-Governor Hi termed the motion 4 dilatory
one intended 20 delay the prosecution Of the de-
tendaut and contended that new trial had been
ordered bys the Court OF Appeals Continuing he
said:
The first motion really IS 10 inspect TIE minutes
Justice Blanchard II denying this motion said that
ne Pa2es APE re eTSns os the motion YOU'D be
unusual and unpreeedented. Th.s mott2n TO inspect
able fishing excursion Moreover. the defendant
e-ogrizes tre Indictment and he cannot thereafter
move inspect the minutes
There were only TWO grounds for setting aside
Indictment he said, when il not properly il
dorsed and when persons other than the District
Attorney were admitted 10 the grand jury room.
and the legislature OF 1888 added 10 the code the
words and On 10 other grounds "
After all Il comes down TO Mr.. CarvaIho's a1fl-
daTit" he said He need not have taken the trouble
10 swear that the Barnet letters were before the
grand Jury We concede Il We admit il. They
say there E failure the part OF The people 10
show what 6id take place IN the grand jury room
They cannot come here with motion papers and
sav IF this IS not so. show what is Sc There
is no rule OF law 10 thus force the District At
ro-nev % show The proceedings. The defendant
must show affi-naatively what took place Motive
was 1eblished; poison established; death was
established: murder was established crime was
established
As 70 the Cornish and Barnet letters Ex-Governor
Hi SAID they were introduced evidence. not tor
comparison, and not as showing the murder o. Bar
net The only point n the decision was that one
could not introduce standards O. comparison and
-rove them by expert testimony. and this was not
done
AS TO the use Of Barnet letters, he held tha1 a.!
The court decided was that they should not nave
been used TO prove the death O Barnet, and Ihat
,hev should not Ia e been received standards OF
COMPARISON But hey were not received as stand
ards OF comparison. They were received as eN-
de-tiary writings. and. thus received, they cou4o
be used for any legitimate purpose
After summing up his points, Ex-Governor Hi
ended having spoken three hours and twenty-one
minutes.
Ex-Governor Black Immediately arose 10 reply
Quoting the revised opinion, he SAID:
7bese passages show that the Court OF Appeals set
aside the trial because improper evidence was al
nir1ed Whatever may say about Aorr1onlsIIr
Tamrrany Hall OF the Chicago platform, Inc eNl-
de-ce was incompetent and the defendant was nor
properly convicted and was not properly iEldlcleo
France. why allow This man 10 come INTO court
n the way Ihe law pres-rt5es, on an i1dlctrnent
founded on proper eT1denceE
Judge -Sew5urger ordered that counsel submit
hriecs Ex-Governor EiIl sail he had his brief
ready 70 submit ard did not care 10 exchange
briefs with counsel for Nol1eux- His brie- was
fled and Ex-Governor Black received week II
which 10 file his.