Waterbury Democrat., 1901-06-20
MOLINEUX'S FATE
The Seven Judges of Court of Appeals
 Will Decide 1t.

murQer,aS the pO1SOner or MrS haJner- inc J. Adams at New York in Decem- Der, 1898, is fn the keeping of the seven judges of the court of appeals, who for three days past have been lis tening to the arguments for and against new trial. The appeal was finally submitted at 1855 o'clock yes terday afternoon and the decision will not be announced until some months hence, when the court sits at Albany for the fall term.
 The crowd that sought admission to- the court room was larger than ever. Excited men fought for places near the glass doors where they might see the actions, if they missed the words of the closing scenes of the notable argu- ment, and the bailiffs had to resort to force to restrain them. The principal speaker was ex-Senator David B. Hill, advocate of the cause of the people, who still had three hours and fifteen minutes of his allotted time left when court opened at 10 o'clock. He spoke until 1:15, and John G. Milburn, attor- ney for MolineuX, was heard for tWen- ty minutes in concise reply.
 MT Hill was again forceful and elo- quent and devoted his best effort to convincing the court of the alleged guilt of the accused. He declared that the question of guilt was the main issue in the case and warned the court not to heed plea that dealt in techni- cality and urged objections to acts and rulings that had not substantially af- fected the. rights of the accused. If the courts were to be thus swerved from the path of duty, he suggested that murderers might as well organ iZe a trust and all enjoy freedom. Ill a dissertation on the law as to the ad- mission of testimony as to another crime, and the use of conceded and dis puted writing for the purpose of com parison, he led the court down long line of authorities and decisions, all aimed at sustaining the use of the Bar net evidence and the policy of the low CT court toward the exhibits of hand writing at the trial. He made frequent references to the famous Tichborne case in England, tracing a similarity in the admission of certain writings to prove perjury on the part of the luck less claimant, and in the policy of ob- jection and obstructionso the part of the defense. A
 Tn finally summing, he reviewed the points made by him yesterday and, step by step, traced out the main fea- lures of the theory of the people. He reviewed the forged correspondence with, the patent medicine dealers and proclaimed Molineux as the author of the letters the enemy of Harry Cor Ilish and Henry c. Barnet, the com pounder of the rare cyanide of fner- cury used in both crimes and the man who mailed the fatal poison that killed Mrs Adams.
 He dwelt upon the fact that Mofin- eux was chemist, and described his laboratory and the poisons which it contained. Where was the man." he exclaimed, "who had the opportunity this man had to poison his enemies?" He pictured MolineuX as 3 sufferer from a malady which made him mel ancholy, reviewed the trouble at the Knickerbocker Athletic club, and pie tured Molineux as plotting for revenge. He insisted that every circumstance in the case linked Molineux to the crime and drew the attention of the court to-the fact that he had hired a lawyer and engaged a handwriting eN pert before suspicion agairfst MIns had shaped itself. aH s&Rss
 Judge Gray: Senator, if you elim- mated the expert testimony, how do you connect this defendant with the crimeY'
 By three common law witnesses who testified to the handwriting, am swered Hill; land by the facts as they present themselves. They complete a chain of circumStantial evidence that left but one avenue to an honest jury. We have Molineux's acknowledged de- scription of his malady and we have that same description in the Marsdon blank. We have all the other direct and circunnstantial evidence that con- meets the prisoner directly"
 s He dweIt at length upon the failure of the prisoner to offer a defense and reiterated his assertion that hef had none to offer.
 MT 1Iilburn's reply was largely de voted to an answer to personal criti- cism and particularly to MT Hills al! fusion to the fact that throughout all his speech he had not once expressed his personal conviction of the inno- cence of the man for whom he pleaded, but it's strongest feature was the indi- action of three points of weakness in the case of the people.
 Replying to the criticism that he had not declared the innocence of the de- fendant, Mir Milburn explained that he did not intrude his personal beliefs in an argument of legal question. He said MT Hill had spoken as if to a jury and had improperly stated certain fea- lures of the case.
 He drew attention to the fact that the claim that Henry c. Barnet had received poison rested solely upon the hearsay testimony of Dr Douglas. who swore that Barnet said the poisoned Kutnow powder had come to him by mail That fact unestablished, or broken down, and the chain of circum- stantial evidence was parted He also directed attention to the facts that Molineux had not bought the bottle holder and had not been identified as the man who hired the Koch letter box, without which it was Impossible to fix guilt upon him. He again asserted that seven-eighths of the record was made up of testimony that was en- tirely incompetent and inadmissable. A conspicuous figure during the ar gument was General Molineux. the aged father of the prisoner. There was no comment at the close and as attorneys and spectators left their chairs, Chief Judge Parker called the next case. Both MT Hill and Mir Mill burn were surrounded by their friends. who congratulated them upon their eff forts.
 PROPOSED ELKS' HOME. 1xhica0o Tuna on cnocio1 +o tho