The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-10-16
GRANTED A NEW TRIAL.
Molineux, the Alleged Murderer, Will
Be Given Another Hearing.
ERROR WAS IN ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
Court OF Appeals Held that Trial Court
Should Have Excluded Evidence DIS
to Another Alleged Crime

as =. 4 ocfohar II The court OF
Albany. " j" Oy'u' =, ,t.tirorv a
appells has granted Roland NJ MVHueuA 81
nov. trt,I
, .oo,5,+cd NJ tie murder
N'"u' ~ h. w, york city
Of C5inorineTJ Adams 10 Ne" I'm
pbd eruicufad IN death The court eraulti
,., "a n,.,aittog opinipn written
! ne" Ni"l -" ~ - +he nrinci.
by Judge Werner VI Ia" au..i
mai ground being that the lower court erItu
T.. .I,,,t,.tro .,,idencn IA Ia another alleged
crime, the death Of Barnett and thus
merged two issues"
1usticas Parker. Haight and Gray dld NOT
a. pornott evidence should
believe thot the haluell
be kept entirely out Of the case
r,1aos yer,cr Rartlptt, Nann and
"uUs'' H. 49,, ,,roratIiog orInion
y Brich C'u'NIIeu VI 'H' "a -. zoo.
and for the eNpunging Of the Barnett 'eS'
tin,onv
lhe court A''' O'. - 49,. ,,o,,
ment of the reasons for granting the new
trloi n e,vs.
'l' .,,, oorrt of appeals
Every mCWp'I ol iht ~ t,l,,,,innt cf
agrees tot me IrHersu %, t me Jgrnnd that
| conviction OF M"uNeuA "" ~ - as owl.
the trail court erred IN rgcelyltIs r, a% 70
dence ile d'cal9tIoua Ul pn lat bo MA re.
Its. ihlllF' aud lWusl'Sal ' -, t,n r,aiI
AN agree that genuine writing m may 1 nv
received In evidence as Sldlua.u' TTttb,W.h
parsons with disputed "Huus' an" ,,i5
such writing may nor ne me I9S.r uI ANAL g.,
bur simply D iart relevant mn iu' ~ t s,ch
tnhi isatie TDat the EgnW9'ueSt3 VI Sic
writings must De es'auh'h'u t." u, o,i
fHCtlon of the court ny ,oMmyl NV ",
dence and when tuai IS d9Hr nahum i in 'SI,,7
experts may compare me dlspuieu Nl',imS
with the genuine WriIlngs anp s lte soIect
opinion thereon, bnt tney eau ~. - t',,n
and establish the standards OF con, ,fo,i
and then compare them with Inc nlSpu''u
writings
"All writngg proved to the satisfaction
Of the court ny prep1nd"r3nce Of evidence
In civil casas ana beyond Il Ieasohaole
doubt in criminal cases -.,.
Il Ry Witnesses who saw the paper writ
ten or ~ whom IN had been acknowledged.
% By witnesses familiar with the hand
v Wins ana Who ara mile tS testify from
tbrir familiarity to a belief respecting its
acpntncnnss
~ Slbcr. tba writing is shown IN have
,.on raca,,pi,ad aud ncoulcsced In
he the nars"W sppposcd To have writ
" " ~ '0u IA and acted unon
Mn, %, bis bnsinSss transactions
10y nun IN ms uus'u 5 ,ha stat,,te
or other coRceLRt5' nay unIpg rtinr bv
WI witG Deg.Ps''u WIN '"e ''''''''
hui lhe court shou.I l,l ,,, W. - CON,
IN evidence So'eN loI ,Ie Pun p"st ~ Al IN int
pallSoh any WIluhs otheI WISE P''ju'"''"'
to the defendant, alan. ..,,.t .t. -,or,
The only subject ABOUT Wnlch lhe mem
bers of the court differ was relative to
testimony tending to SHOW that NolIneux
caused the death of barnett by the same
method as that used In taking me NE or
Mrs. Adams. Four members Of the court.
O'BHen. Bartlett. Nann mad Werner, agree
that the evidence should not nave been
tho opinion written by o Brien and Werner,
The other three judges Parker. Gray and
HLmght he'd that that evidence is admiss.
case pOl0flnE toward MOllUpnN tends 10