New-York tribune., 1902-07-24
LATIMER CASE UNSOLVED.
CORONER'S JURY UNABLE TO NAME
GUILTY PERSON.
IT is SAID THAT A CLERK ATTEMPTED TO
DISsUADE JURY FROM CENsuRlNG
CoRoNER's OFFICE.

CoRoNER's OFFICE.
The death of Albert C Latimer is still as deep
a mystery it the day after the shoot-
ing Three witnesses who were heard yester-
day morning in the Kings County Court House
shed no new light on the murder. The jury re-
tired at IL :35 a. m, returning a verdict at l'lo
o'clock finding that Latimer came 10 his death
by pistol shot wound inflicted by person
unknown TO the jury. The absence of an ante
mortem statement from Latimer was the sub
ject which kept the jury out so long. One OF
the jurymen afterward said that the jury de-
cided that the Coroner's Office should be censured
for neglecting TO obtain such a statement A
clause of this kind was drawn up and attached
the verdict he said, when two young men
whom he and the other jurymen supposed 10 De
clerks from the Coroner's Office. obtruded them
selves into the room. and, upon finding that the
jury had agreed upon verdict, asked to see
it, Then one of the young men. the juryman
said. exclaimed:
why. gentlemen. you are censuring the Coro-
ner's Office! This is not right. The Coroner
was not to blame for the absence of statement
from LatiIner and besides, have only two
Coroners IN this borough, and they have too
much to do 1t was impossible for them TO OBJ
tain such a statement"
The argument continued between the
jurymen and supposed clerks for some time, and
the jury finally agreed 10 render the following
verdict:
THE VERDICT.
We, the jury. find that the said Albert c.
Latimer came to his death on the 9th day Of
July at st. Mary's Hospital, by shock and in
ternal hemorrhage and pneumonia following
penetrating pistol shot wound Of the chest, in
fiicted by some person unknown TO the jury.
We also believe an ante-mortem statement
should have been obtained but the nature Of the
evidence makes it impossible TO determine who
at fault"
Coroner Michael ]. Flaherty in charge Of
the case an dthe duty of obtaining ante
mortem statement devolved upon him. Mr.
Flaherty says that he called I'D the hospital
several times and asked permission to see Lati-
mer but that the physicians objected. Mr..
Flaherty was informed of Latmers precarfous
condition just before he died, and hurried to the
hospital but then it was too late The jurymen
believed. il is said by those in a position TO
know. that Mr.. Flaherty could have exercised
his judicial authority and demanded permission
from the hospital people TO see Latimer, and
that if a statement had been obtained the whole
mystery might now have been cleared up.
When the verdict was rendered several of the
witnesses, including William Latimer, brother
of the dead man. surrounded William H. Tut
hill and shook him warmly by the hand
In his charge to the jury, Coroner Williams
called attention TO the action of the hospital
doctors while Mr.. Latimer was lying at the
point of death. saying that there were periods
when the patient was rational and able to make
statement but that opportunity was afford
ed to the coroners office.
Much was expected from Harry ]. Parker the
principal witness. but his testimony had
marked effect on the jurymen. Coroner Will
Jams his In he ignored
thing that Parker said the stand.
Parker, it had been said, would give testimony
that would lead to the arrest of the murderer
II was said that he had been engaged by Mr
Iatimer to shadow Mrs. Latimer over a month
before the shooting, and that Latimer had told
him that he feared for his life. Parker was dis
covered by one of the newspapers, and sensa-
tional statement from him was published yes
terday morning. 1t was learned by Tribune
reporter that Parker had had an inter
view with Mrs. Latimer William Latimer,
Coroner Flaherty and Detective Harring-
ton, who impersonated Byron G.. Latimer.
This was on Monday night at the home of
William Latimer. Parker's story impressed
Harrington at first, but after investigation
he decided on Tuesday that there little
foundation for it. and yesterday morning Har-
rington caught Parker at the Manhattan end
OF the bridge and brought him to court.
SAID HE SAW TUTHILL GO TO LATIMER'S.
On the stand Parker said that he lived at No
2l9 East Eighty-second-st Manhattan and
that he adjuster OF claims. in partner
ship with his wife, at No 1,459 Third-ave. He
declared that Latimer called on him on May l.
in connection with gathering evidence against
his wife to her unfaithfulness to him in
connection with a man of the name of Tuthill"
The witness then said that Latmer took him
to the home of TuthiI and pointed the latter
out. Parker then proceeded to shadow Tuthil
doing his work mostly in front of the
Latimer home. in Hancock-st. On May A.
he said. he saw Tuthill go into the
Latimer house about 3:}0 .. Witness
admitted that this the time that Mr. Lati-
rner himself usually arrived home from business.
Parker declared that he continued 10 watch the
house. but never made any notes of the dates.
He made written reports, he said, to Mr. Lati-
mer daily. These reports he proposed to use TO
refresh his memory when he took the witness
stand when Latimer brought his suit for di-
vorce.
About May g." the witness continued, Il saw
Tuthill call at the Latimer house about 10
O'Clock in the morning"
He said that at all times Mrs. Latimer came
TO the door to meet TuthilI. After that. he said,
he visited the house nearly every day until
June !.
Did you observe anything in the manner or
conduct of Mr.. Tuthill to Mrs. Latimer. of
Mrs Latimer TO Mr.. Tuthin while they on
the stoop. that anything more than friend
ly?" asked District Attorney Clarke.
Il saw nothing more than friendliness" the
witness admitted. He said, also, that he was
aware that there was a colored servant and two
children in the house at all times.
Parker said that Latimer had paid him S1O0
for his work, and that he had claim against
the estate of S79. Mr. Clarke asked him if he