The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-10-16

of Handwriting Decided - Limitation
perts.
Albany, Oct 15-The court of appeal
this afternoon handed down a decision
reversing the Judgment Of conviction
of the lower court in the Molineux case
and granting new trial to Roland B
Molineux, who was convicted of tht
murder of Mrs. Kate j. Adams.
Mrs. Adams died on December rs
1898, after taking what she supposed
was a done of bromo- settler, but which
was found upon analysis to contain
cyanide of mercury. The bottle contain
ing the poison had been sent to Harry
s. Cornish, a relative of Mrs. Adams
1t came through the mail, and the
sender was unknown. Upon the trial
the evidence tended to show that the
poison was sent by Roland B. Molineux,
AT the trial evidence also was adj
mitted to show that Henry c. Barnet,
who died suddenly at the Knicl1erbock-
err Athletic club, about q month before,
had been poisoned in the same manner.
An important line of testimony was
that of handwriting experts, which
served to connect Molineux with the
sending Of both bottles Of poison.
| Judge Werner writes the prevailing
opinion of the court, all the judges con-
CURING except on the admission of the
| Barnet evidence. as to which Judge
Parker writes a dissenting opinion
with whom Judge Haight concurs
Judge Gray also writes dissenting
opinion. Judge O'Brien writes a con-
curing opinion.
Every member Of the court of appeals
agrees for the reversal of the judgment
of conviction of Molineux, on the
ground that the trial court erred in re-
ceiving in evidence the declaration of
Barnet, made to Drs. Phillips and
Douglass, that he had received KutnoW
powders through the mail.
All agree that since the amendment
Of section of chapter 36 Of the laws of
1880 by chapter 555 of the laws of 1883,
genuine writings may be received in
evidence as standards of comparison
with a disputed writing, although such
writing may not be the issue on trial,
but simply a fact relevant and mater
ial to that issue; that the genuineness
of such writings must be established
to the satisfaction of the court by
common-law evidence, and, when that
Is DONE handwriting experts may COM
pare the disputed writing with the gen
uine. writings and give their opinion
thereon, but they cannot select and es-
tablsh the standards of comparison,
WI
puted writings.
"All writings proved to the satisfac-
ton of the court by preponderance of
evidence in civil cases. and beyond a
reasonable doubt in criminal cases. ~
by witnesses who saw the paper writ
ten to whom it had been acknowl-
edged; (2) by witnesses familiar with
the handwriting of the person charged
to be the writer and who are able to
testify from their familiarity to be-
lief respecting it's genuineness; (3)
where the writing is shown to have
been recognized and acquiesced In by
the persons supposed to have written 1T,
or adopted and acted upon by him in
his business transactions or other con-
Germs. may under the statute be COM
rared with the disputed writing by wit
nesses. But the court should refuse to
receive in evidence solely for the pur-
pose Of comparison any writing other
wise preiudicial to the defendant"
Judge Werner, writing the principal |
opinion)
The only subject about which the |
members OF the court differ in their |
opinion relates to the testimony intro
luced tending to show that Molineux
,aused the death of Barnet by the same
method as that used In taking the life
If Mrs. Adams. Four of the members
If the court, Judges O'Brien, Bartlett,
yann, and Werner, agree that the evil
ience should not have been received;
md the reason for it is stated in the
opinions written by Judges O'Brien
md Werner. The other three, Chief
Judge Parker and Judges Gray and
Iaight, hold that that evidence is adj
nissible. in that the evidence in the
Barnet case, pointing toward Molineux
ends to identify him as the person who
Tiled Mrs. Adams while attempting to
axe the life of Cornish by means of
hat rare poison known as cyanide of |
1ercury. the chief judge and Judge |
Tray writing opinions to that effect.
In his opinion Judge Werner says:
First in order, if not in Importance is
he question whether any evidence was {
dmissible concerning the alleged kill /
1g of Barnet. This question may be !
onsidered without referring to the |
peciic objections or exceptions Of the s
efence, because it was raised so Of {
IN and in so many ways that 1t would | +
,volve profitless reiteration and pro-
kitty to dwell upon such objection and 5
reception. c
The general rule of evidence applica- t
lie to criminal trials is that the state I
lnnot prove against a defendant any Ut
lime not alleged In the indictment, 6
Their as a foundation for separate 8
lnishment or as a aiding the proofs | y
lat he is guilty of the crime charged. i
The exceptions to the rule cannot be +
ated with categorical precision. Cen
ally speaking, evidence of other =
lines is competent to prove the speci- I
crime when it tends to establish, -
st motive: second. intent: third, the
,sence Of mistake or accident; fourth, =
common scheme or plan embracing |
lie commission of two or more crimes =
related to each other that proof of
le tends to establish the Others fifth,
e identity of the person charged with .
e commission of the crime on trial u