The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-10-21
CASE OF PATRICK
Recent MOlineuX Decision Not Likely
10 Affect II.
TWO CASES DlSSIMILAR
State viii EndeaYOr 10 Connect Muir
der and Forgery as One Crime.
WILL TRY TO SHOW CONSPIRACY.
Senator Hill Said 10 Believe MOIineux
De 8o,,'' Will Have Effect.
81 e; ,s e.
MAY HAVE 0aW2 ~ on THOUGH.
In.
New Trial Was Granted u, .ux Be-
cause Evidence in Two Separate
Cases Was Admitted in Trial.
WILL TRY TO SHOW CONSPIRACY.
Senator Hill Said 10 Believe MOIineuS
De y. Will Have Effect
New Trial Was Granted u. lux Be-
cause Evidence in Two Separate
Cases Was Admitted in Trial.
Especial to The Post ,


New York, October ia careful reading
OF the syonpsls Of the opinion handed down
by a majority OF the court in the famous
MollneuN murder case as well as Of the
opinion signed by the entire court. causes
lawyers to express the opinion that unless
new testimony has been discovered since
the first trial the district attorney win not
feel justified in again prosecuting Moli-
neuA' For the testimony which the court
of appeals has now declared to have been
Improperly admitted was the only testl-
mony the prosecution had with which to
forge a practically perfect chain Of circum
Standal evidence. In other words, this
testimony was vital and If It be lncom
petcnt and no other competent testimony
is at hand to take its place, then, In all
| probability, the case will be dismissed
at the suggestion Of the district attorney.
| The decision Is spoken Of by ex-senator
| Hin as In all probability affecting in very
/ important way the trial of the lawyer Pat
rick, soon to begin upon an Indictment
| for the murder Of the wealthy recluse,
| Rice 1t Is presumed that in .Ic prosecu-
! tion Of Patrick for murder the State viii
make an attempt to Introduce testimony
showing that Patrick forged or caused 10
| be forged the Rice WILL by which large
part of the great estate was to pass into
/ the possession of Patrick.
| Nh lin is Of he opinion that the ruling
/ Of the court of appeals in the Molneux
! case Will make il impossible to get in evil
dcncc the forgery of the Rice will That,
however, Is not the general opinion In this
/ city. The two cases that Of MohneuN
and that of Putrlckas FAR As the nccusn-
! tiou of two crimes committed by each OF
| them is concerned, are entirely different,
Molineux was tried for the murder of Mrs
Adams. In order to prove that murder the
! State undertook TO show that MolineuX
! had committed another murder that of
| Bamet-by precisely similar and very un-
usual means Tho court of appeals says
! thar these two crimes. so far as anNthIng
| in the record shows. We're entirely distinct ;
| that nothing offered tending to connect
| MollneuX with the Barnet crime showed
either In motive. the ahScnc" If accident,
or in any relation Of the two murdered
persons tn MulincuN, anything tending 70
connect the one crime with the other
/ ON the other hand, in the Patrick case
the state undoubtedly expects ~ show that
the forgery NJ the will aud the murder Of
Rice were really parts Of he same crime
That is 10 SAY, the district attorney uu
| douhtcdly Will rndeavor 10 prove con-
| epiracy to get possession ~ Rice $ many
millions As % part ~ that conspiracy =
| will was forged In ordei 70 make inA'
| Will Immediately operative 80 that fatrck
/ could gain possession of these millions.
! Ricp's death was necessary. Therefore be
| was murdered. LAWYERS say therefore
that IN their opinion the court WI NOV,
that il is entirely competent to show ihIt
/ Patrick forged or caused to he Forged WI
purpOrting to bc signed by Rice because
the motive for the murder Of Rlce WIS INC
paIuinr Of the possession If his millions.
| Ii was he same motive In either case, botn
the forgery and the murder
The impression Of the har mere Is mn
| senator lin was not understood hy the
! renorter who quoted his words and that
| what he meant to say was that, under tht
opinion Of the court 81 nppriIN,, to W.,