The Topeka state journal., 1902-01-22
AN IMPORTANT POINT
On Which May Hang the Fate of the
Defendant.


Plattsburg, Mo-, Jan. 22-Judge
Burnes, on the adjournment of court
last evening, took under advisement a
question, the decision of which may de-
/ termine the fate of Mrs. Addie B. Rich
| ardson, who is on trial here for the muir
der of her husband, Frank w. Richard
son, at Savannah, Mo- The question is
whether or not evidence tending to
prove undue intimacy between Mrs.
Richardson and Stewart Fife shall be
admitted at the present trial Fife is
in jail at Savannah, awaiting trial on
the same charge upon which Mrs. Rich
ardson is now facing the jury.
The state, since it began introducing
testimony, has made it quite clear that
it neither hopes nor intends to try to
faSteD upon Mrs. Richardson the guilt
of having actually fired the slot with
which her husbands life was ended.
Its plain purpose is to show that Fife
did the killing. 1t is trying to prove
that Mrs. Richardson and Fife were too
intimate, that Richardson came home
Christmas eVe 1900, and found them to-
gether. and that she consented to the
killing by Fife and encouraged him to
do it. The state hopes in this way to
convict her of aiding and abetting Fife,
who, under the old criminal laws of Mis-
souri,, would have been known as the
principal
The question whether the evidence
Mrs. Richardson should be introduced
came up. A witness named r. A Morris
was on the stand. Charles r. Booher,
who was conducting the examination
for the state, asked him if he had ever
seen Mrs Richardson and Fife together.
He quickly answered Yes Judge r.
E. Culver, for the defense, Immediately
objected. I'VE want to know, if the
intended to show that there was con-
spiracy to kill Richardson, to show that
the defendant killed him herself, or to
show that she merely aided and abetted
the person who did it,
TT is merely for the purpose of show
ing motive" replied Mr.. Booher.
Judge Culver insisted however, that
this was not a sufficient answer He
conuended that the question was not
proper unless the object was to prove a
conspiracy and that, if this was to be
proved, it must be proved before a mo-
tive for the crime was shown.
Judge Burnes, perceiving the import
ance of the point, dismissed the jury
and the lawyers were invited to pre-
sent authorities and make arguments.
Mr.. Booher denied that the state need
take either horn of the dilemma pre-
be proper to give to the jury the evil
dence showing the relations between
Mrs Richardson and Fife and allow it
to determine whether Mrs. Richardson
should be adjudged to have done the
shooting or to have been merely an ac-
cesSory
Continuing Mr. Booher said: 81 desire
to say here that we do not intend to try
to prove that there was anything Grim
inal in the connection between Fife and
Mrs Richardson but we do propose to
show that they followed a course of con-
duct which is worthy of the conS1dera-
ton of the jury. We will show that
she would go part of the way down
town with her husband in the morning,
when he was on his way to the store,
and would then go back by the Fife
home, where she would meet Stewart
Fife.
1--WE will show more. We will prove
that, on one occasion, Richardson ac-
cused his wife of infidelity within the
hearing of other persons. We will go
even further than this. and will show
that, on one occasion, Stewart Fife
made threats against the life of Frank
were made in the presence of Mrs. Rich
ardson. 1t seems to me that these facts
are competent for the purpose of show
ing a motive
Mr.. Booher was replied to by both
Judge Culver and Judge 8. P. Huston.
Judge Huston said the fact of Mrs.
Richardson's presence at the time of
the killing could not be used to show
that she was an alder or abettor of it.
because she was in her own home. As
for the esta blishment of a motive, he
Mrs. Richardson with the crime before
this was done
Judge Burns, in the early part of the
argument, seemed disposed to exclude
the evidence in question, but before he
adjourned court he dropped some re-
marks which indicated probability