New-York tribune., 1902-02-11
FRIEND A STATE WITNESS
PATRICK's PERSONAL COUNSEL TESTI-
FIES THAT LAWYER TOLD HIM HE
WAS SURE OF RICE ESTATE.

WAS SURE OF RICE ESTATE
After a recess of three court days due TO the Ill
ness Of one of the jurors. John D. Campbell, the
trial of Albert T. Patrick. who is charged with
numbering William Marsh Rice. was resumed yester-
day. Mr.. Campbell had apparently recovered from
his indisposition. When adjourned because
of the Illness of Mr.. Campbell, DR.. H B. Loomis.
the pathological! expert, under cross-examina-
ton. He had testified that the condition OF Mr..
Rices lungs, as developed by the autopsy, was DUE
in his opinion, the inhalation OF chloroform or
like rritant. He the first witness yester-
day
Il know OF no natural cause he replied 20 one
Of Assistant District Attorney Osbornes questions
that could have caused death with the symptoms
shown by the autopsy on Mr.. Rice's body
Are you prepared to say Mr.. Moore asked IN
cross-examination. that Mr.. Rice did not die OF
disease?"
II am not can say. however that the exam
nation I made disclosed no disease
Max Hunke. manufacturing chemist OF Brook
lyn who made the embalming fluid used In en-
balning the body Of Mr. Rice testified to the in
gradients from which the fluid was made. Traces
Of mercury were found In Mr.. Rice's stomach as
shown by the testimony Of Rudolph A. Witthaus,
and the counsel for the defence asked Dr. Witt
haus IL the mercury might not have come from the
embalming fluid. Mr.. Hunke was called 70 offset
any impression that that question might have made
the jury.
did the fluid you sold to the embalmer Potter.
contain mercury?' he was asked The defence OBJ
jected and was sustained, but after long argu-
ment by Mr.. Osborne the Recorder reversed MS
former ruling, and. despite the objections OF the
defence, permitted the witness TO answer the queS-
ton His reply No"
On cross-examination. the witness told Mr.. Moore
he knew of several kinds OF embalming duld that
contained mercury. One manufactured at his Ia
boratory contained IT, but he did not believe II pos
sibla thar mercury could have got into the huid
sold to Mr. Powright. the undertaken, for the use
OF the embalpler. Potter
John r. Potts Patricks personal counsel. who
cashed the $4,000 check at the Fifth Avenue trust
Company for Patrick, was the next witness. IN
RESPONSE TO Mr. Osborne's questions he testified
that Patrick first spoke to him OF Mr. Rice on
September IT, 1900.
patrick said: John. I've got something to tell
you That rich client Of mine has made VIII.
naming me residuary legatee. Come with me- ana
I'll prove IL to you" They went 10 No. ~ Broad
way and Patrick showed witness the assignment
giving him access TO the safe deposit vault d
paper showing the settlement OF the contest OF Ihe
will OF Mr.. Rice, and some other papers some
checks fell out while Patrick was handling the
papers. The amounts were blank, but they were
signed and made out TO his order.
Witness identified the 1900 will as the paper Pat
rick showed him TO prove that his rich client"
had made him resduary Iegatee of all his estate
Witness said to Patrick: I don't tnlnk a VII IAe
shaT al gbt gog6 G6bn Ior hss esae IS prctcy mine
Counsel for the defence objected to the witness
Patrick retained Mr.. PottS as uls peTSoIsl
counsel, and that any communication between
counsel and client was privileged
Recorder Gof sustained the contention or tEe de-
fence and refused TO instruct the witness TO tell
how Patrick explained his possession or the blank
checks any OF the conversation he nad with
Patrick subsequent 10 his arrest
All OF the testimony OF Mr.. Potts was given IN a
storm Of objections IN which Mr.. House accused
Assistant District Attorney OF leading the Wit
ness, and Mr.. Osborne declared that the lawyer
for the defence was giving the witness warnings
what questions he should not answer.
Every and then, after more than usually
prolonged wrangle. the Recorder instructed the
stenographer. Strike all that out, but the point
of the prosecution had been made, and the ques-
tions objected 10 were in the minds of the jury.
The witness said Patrick told him he presumed
Mr.. Rice actuated by personal regard for him
and because he knew his determination OF character
would lead him TO carry out all Mr.: Rices diTec-
tiOns without regard TO the claims or his relations
He told witness the day before Mr. Rice died that
he had not seen Mr.. Rice for a week He said he
did not intend to permit Mr.. Rice TO play fast and
loose with him
Mr Potts identified the so5 900 check which he
certified and later deposited in the Nassau Bank
the credit OF Patrick as trustee Patrick, he
said, told him that Mr.. Rice sent the checks
him on the day before his death.
Within two or three days OF Mr. Rice's death
Patrick told witness he understood the checks were
sent him 10 settle the claims or the heirs un-
der Mr.. Rces Will
said he had the proceeds OF the S5,C00 check for
porary receiver OF Mr. Rtce's estate. Patrick gave
his written consent 10 the transfer.
Adjournment taken al AIS o'clock until 1880
a. m to-day The failure OF the defence 10 cross
examine Mr.. Potts at length had upset Mr.. Os-
borne's calculations.