The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-12
And the Justice VIII Consider the
Testimony and Examine Legal
Opinions Before Making Ruling.
FORGERY CASES NOT HEARD
EXAMINATION WAIVED BY ALL
THREE OF THE DEFENDANTS.
Bail for Meyer and Short Fixed at
$4,000 Each-TestimOny of
handwriting Experts.

NEW YORK, April 1.-THE hearing in
the case OF Albert T. Patrick. charged with
the murder of the aged millionaire, Will
liam Marsh Rice, closed this afternoon
and Justice Jerome announced that he re-
served his decision, but hoped to make it
known by next Monday. 1t rests with
Justice Jerome whether not Patrick
will be held for the grand jury. Meanwhile
Patrick will stay in the Tombs.
In summing up the prisoners counsel,
Mr.. Moore. presented several reasons why
he thought Patrick should be freed. The
last one was this: Admitting. IL we will,
that Patrick is guilty Of forgery corrobo-
ration of that has no bearing on the charge
Of murder. We contend that there is no
evidence that Rice was murdered
THAT may De," Justice Jerome said,
''but under the common law, the state
ment Of Jones alone, l should have to hold
the defendant for the grand jury. Whether
the statutes change this, in regard to
holding a defendant for the grand jury. is
the question. That is mere question Of
law and can easily be settled"
Mr.. Moore, acting for David L. Short
and Norris Meyer, waived examination of
the charges of forgery against them, as
he also did concerning the charge of for
gerry against Patrick The latter was re-
manded to the Tombs without bail on the
murder charge, but no bail was fixed for
him in the forgery matter, while Short and
Meyer were held in bonds of $4,000 each.
The first witness to-day was William ].
Kinsley an expert on handwriting. The
witness was handed several checks paid by
Swenson g. Co. and signed by William nj.
Rice, and then was handed the 1900 will and
the checks for s25. 900 and 200 drawn on
Swenson e. Co. In favor OF Patrick. Mr..
Kinsley said that in his opinion the sig
natures on the will and on the $4,000 and
se5 900 checks were not written by the per-
son who had signed the checks presented
by the prosecution as bearing the genuine
signature of William NJ Rice.
NOT WRITTEN BY SAME PERSON.
Assistant District Attorney Osborne then
handed the witness the assignment on the
Fifth-avenue Trust Company and what is
known as "the cremation letter." and Mr..
Kinsey said: II have already compared
the signatures on these papers with the
admitted signature of the late Mr.. Rice.
and / say that. in my opinion. they were
not written by the same person.
Defendants counsel. Mr.. Moore. then
asked the witness if he had any personal
knowledge of the handwriting of Mr. Rice
other than that certain signatures were
shown him as being in Mr.. Rice's hand
writing, and the expert replied that he had
not.
David N. Carvel, another handwriting
expert, was called. He corroborated Kins-
leys testimony.
Prof. Rudolph Witthaus, an expert In
chemical analysis. testified that he had
made an examination Of the internal or
gans of William NJ. Rice. In the stomach
he found traces of mercury; in the intes-
tines he found about half a grain of mer-
curry in the kidneys about one-ninth of a
grain Of mercury, and in the liver an un-
weighable quantity of mercury. There
was not sufficient mercury to cause death.
but the presence of it in the organs indi-
Gated that large quantity had been taken
by the deceased, but just how much he.
could not determine. Witness said he had
seen the brain and lungs. but was unable
to tell of their condition. he is not suf-
| fcently conversant with these organs TO
give an expert opinion On cross-exami-
nation the professor said that traces OF
mercury would remain in the system sew
eral months after the drug had been intro
duced into the body. He could not say
how long the fumes of chloroform would
remain about a person to whom the drug
was administered by inhalation. Professor
witthauss testimony concluded the court
took recess. after which arguments by
the lawyers were heard.
COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT
Mr. Moore. counsel for Patrick prefaced
his argument by asking Justice Jerome to
discharge the accused from custody on
four grounds. The purport of these were
that the prosecuting attorneys had failed
to establish the fact that a crime had been
committed, that IL murder had been per-
petrated the people had utterly failed 10
connect Patrick with 1t and that there
was not sufficient corroboration OF the
statements made by the valet Jones who
Moore said. was a self-confessed murderer
a liar and possibly perjurer Mr.. Moore
contended that there an absence of
material facts in the evidence which would
tend to connect Patrick in the killing OF
MIR Rice in corroboration TO Jones. AS to
the question of conspiracy he said that
the testimony of a coconspirator was not
sufficient TO hold the accused.
Justice Jerome then announced that he
would reserve the decision in the case un-
I'll he could read over the testimony and
the legal authorities in relation TO IT,
Justice Jerome said he was going out OF
town over Saturday and Sunday and would
render a decision as TO the disposition of
the case against Patrick some time on
| Monday next.
The charges of forgery against Patrick
Short and Meyer were then taken up at
| the request or Assistant District Attorneys
Garvin and Osborne. Lawyer Moore asked
for few minutes delay. during which he