Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-10-16
A NEW TRIAL
GRANTED AOL|NEUx
ALBANY. YESTERDAY
MORNING.
OPINION BY JUDGE WERNER
THE LOWER COURT HELD TO HAVE
MADE ERROR
In Admitting Evidence as 20 the
Death of Barnett. Thus Merging
Two Issues-A Condensed state
ment of the Reason for New
Trial Given Out by the Court.


Court of Appeals has granted Roland B.
Molineux a new trial.
Molineux was convicted OF the muir
der of Katherine J. Adams, in New
York City. and sentenced TO death. The
court grants new trial on prevailing
opinion written by Judge Werner of
Rochester, his principal ground being
that the lower count erred in admitting
evidence as to another alleged crime,
the death Of Barnet, and thus merged
two issues.
Justices Parker. Haight and Gray do
| not believe that the Barnet evidence
should be kept entirely out of the case.
Judges We.ner. Bartlett, NaEn and
O'Brien ooncurred in the prevailing
opinion and for the expunging of the
Barnet testimony.
The court gave out eonden sci state
ment OF the reasons for granting the
new trial. II Gays:
Every member of the court OF ap-
peais agrees for the reversal of the
Judgment of conviction OF Molineux
on the ground that the trial court erred
in receiving In evidence the declara-
tons of Barnet made to Drs. Phillips
and Douglass that he had received kut-
now powders through the mail.
| All agreed that since the amendment
of section 2, of chapter SO. of the laws
| of 1880, by chapter 555, OF the laws OF
, 1885, genuine writings may be received
with disputed writing. although such
writing may not be the issue on trial,
but simply a fact relevant and material
| to that issue That the genuineness of
such writings must be established to
| the satisfaction of the court by COM
mon law evidence. and when that is
done handwriting experts may COM
pare the disputed writings with the
/ genuine writings and give their opinion
| thereon but they cannot select and es-
tablish the standards of comparison
ana then compare them with the dis
puted writings.
"All writings proved to the satisfac.
ton of the court by preponderance OK
evidence in civil cases. and beyond a
reasonable doubt in criminal cases. %
| by witnesses who saw the paper writ
| ten or to whom it had been acknowl-
edged; CD by witnesses familiar with
| the handwriting of the person charged
! to be the writer and who are able to
testify from the familiarity to a belief
respecting its genuineness. CD where
the writings shown to have been recog-
nized and acquiesced in by the person
supposed to have written 1t. or adopted
and acted upon by him in his business
| transactions or other concerns, may
under the statute be compared with
the disputed writing by witnesses. But
the court should refuse to receive in
evidence solely for the purpose of com
, parison any writing otherwise preju-
dicial to the defendant.
The only subject about which the
members OF the court differ in their
opinions relates to the testimony intro
duced tending to show that Molinuex
caused the death of Barnet by the
same method as that used in taking
the life of Mrs. Adams. Four of the
members of the court, OBrien, Bart
lett, vann and Werner. agree that the
evidence should not have been receiy-
ed. and the reason for it is stated in
LIE opinions written by OBrien and
Werner. The other three judges. Par
| ker. Oh. J., and Gray and Haight, u,
| holo that that evidence is admissible
J in that the evidence in the Barnet case
pointing toward Molineux tends to
identify him as the person who killed
Mrs. Adams while attempting to take
the life of Cornish by means OF that
| rare poison, known as cyanide Of mer-
cury. chief Judge and Judge Gray writ
ing to kill Barnet? Jealousy by the lat
ter's intervention in the love affair OF
the former. The mere statement OF
these two motives suffice to show that
thew have no relation to each other
and that the evidence which tends to
prove the killing of Barnet throws no
light upon the motive which actuated
the attempt upon the life of Cornish.
So apparent. indeed, is this diversity
of motive in the two cases, that the
learend counsel for the people upon
the argument herein abandoned the
claim that there was anything in COM
mon between them and ingeniously
sought to create single motive out Of
Barnet and Cornish. OF course no in
ferences can be drawn from these al
legged forgeries without assuming that
the Barnet and Cornish letters were
all properly received in evidence and
proven to have been written by the de-
PENDANT. We will therefore assume
that all of these letters were properly