The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-10-16
TO HAVE NEW TRIAL
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
RULING IN CASE OF
MOLINEUX
ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT
Held by the Justices Unanimously
rs Sufficient Ground for Re-
VcrSinE His Com
VictiOn.

ALBANY. n. Y, Oct. 15.-The court of
appeals has granted Roland b. Molneux
new trial.
Molineux was convicted of the murder
OF Katherine J. Adams in New York
City and sentenced TO death. The court
grants a new trial on a prevailing opinion
written by Judge Werner, of Rochester,
his principal ground being that the lower
court erred in admitting evidence as TO
another alleged crime. the death of Bar
net, and thus merged two issues.
Every member of the court of appeals
voted for the reversal of Judgment of
conviction of MolineuX On the ground the
trial court erred in receiving in evidence
the declara tons of Barnet made to DrS.
Phillips and Douglass that he had re-.
ceived Kultnow's powders through the
mails.
The only question on which the mem
bers of the court differ in the opinions
relates to the receiving of evidence that
Barnet was killed by the same method
used in taking the life of Mrs. Adams.
Four members of the court agree that the
evidence should not be received. The
other three members of the court held
that evidence is admissible in that the
evidence in the Barnet case pointing
toward MolineuX tends to Identify him as
the person who XII led Mrs. Adams while
means of that rare poison known as
cynanide of mercury.
The majority report reads
LAS a part or the theory on the theo-
reS upon which the prosecution sought
to connect the defendant with the muir
der of Mrs. Adams, evidence was offered
and received to show that the defendant
WAS responsible for the previous killing
of one Henry c. Barnet. who came 10
his death at the Knickcrbocker Athlete
r1rr1. ha dow of n
Der 1898 The rule applicable to criminal
trials is that the state cannot prove
against a defendant a crime not alleged
in the indictment foundation for sep9-
late punishment or aiding the proofs
that he is guilty of the crime charged.
The majority report continues:
What was the motive assigned for the
defendants alleged attempt to kill Cor
niSh? Hatred engendered by quarrels
between them in which Barnet took no
part and of which, so far as the record
shows he had no knowledge. What was
the motive which is said to have moved
the defendant to kill Barnet? Jealousy,
caused by the latter'S Intervention In the
love affair of the former. The nV-e state
ment of these two motives suffice to show
that they 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 learned
counsel Tor the people, upon the argu-
ment herein, abandoned the claim that
there was anything in common between
them, and ingeniouSly sought to create
a single motive out of the alleged for
gerieS by the defendant of the names
of Barnet and Cornish. OF course, no
inference can be drawn from these al
legged forgerieS without assuming that
the Barnet and Cornish letters we've
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 in evil
dence, that they were written by the
defendant, and that he was therefore
guilty of the crime of forgery in the
use of each of these names.
After summarizing the theory of the
prosecution that the murder of Mrs Adj
ans was the result of a plan devised
by the defendant to kill Cornish by
means of a rare and deadly poison con-
cealed in a powder in common use as a
remedy for trifing ailments, the court
says:
Throughout the length and breadth of
the testimony relating to the death of
Barnet there is not L suggestion of a
fact which throws any light upon the
intent with which the poison was sent to
Cornish; or which serves to support or
strengthen the differences as to intent
which may be drawn from the evidence
tending to show that the defendant sent
the poison to Cornish.
Further on the court says:
Assuming Barnet to have been killed
by the defendant, the crime has it's own
separate motive, intent and plan This
Is equally true of the crime charged in
the indictment. The mere fact thai the
TWO crimes are parallel as to the meth
COS and means employed in their eXecu-
ton does not serve to identify the de-
PENDANT as the poisoner of Mrs Adams
unless his guilt of the latter crime may
be inferred from its similarity to the for
lner. Such an inference might be justi-
fed if it had been shown conclusively
that the defendant had killed Barnet and
that no other person could have killed
Mrs. Adams. But no such evidence was
given. The evidence tended to show that
the defendant had the knowledge, skill
and material to produce the poison which
was sent to Cornish. But he was not
this knowledge, skill and material. In
deed, it is common knowledge that there
are many such persons. Therefore the
naked similarity of these crimes proves
nothing"