New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-12

ton of the poison package written by the
defendant
Upon the part of the defendant he has
denied under oath that the superscripton is in
his hand. He has produced five witnesses. who
had known him through a period of years. who
testified that they knew his handwriting. and
they told you their opinion, that he did not
write that address. He has also presented six
bank officers who expressed the opinion that the
writing was not the defendants. The defence
has also produced four experts in handwriting.
who gave their reasons for saying the defendant
did not address that package. I shall not dis
cuss any of that testimony. The law places the
burden of that discussion upon you You are
entitled to exercise your own judgment regard
ing those disputed points. The opinion of the
experts are not controlling upon you. You are
under no legal requirements to believe what
they told you
Justice Lambert said if the reasons assigned
by the one side no more consistent than
those advanced by the other side the jury
| should disregard both and investigate for them
selves
HANDWRITING ALONE NOT ENOUGH.
You have to take the responsibility for that
decision he said. If the peoples case stood
on the question of handwriting, it should he
. dismissed. But if the contention of the prosecu-
ton is sustained in other respects you may con
slider the handwriting
Did the defendant obtain the Tiffany box
from Tiffany & Co? There is no evidence here
that he did. hut evidence has been submitted
that he had an account there. The most that
can be said for that point is that he had the
opportunity.
Did the defendant have the bottle of bromo?
He says he did not There is no evidence here
to contradict it. but it in the box ne had
the opportunity to obtain
Did the defendant procure the silver bottle
holder? It is Contended by the people that the
holder was bought in Newark on December q.
! 1898 and one of tine witnesses for the State
testified that the defendant was in Market
St Newark. the afternoon Of that day.
! The people claim that the defendant had
/ friend in the store where the holder was bought
and that he had the opportunity 10 get the
/ holder"
| Justice Lambert spoke Of the testimony Of
/ Farrell the Newark detective. and Of his offer
TO testify that Moneux had no beard on that
| day. He referred 10 MoineUx's statement TO
/ Farrell that he Iunched with his employer. Mr.
Hermann on December u. 1898 and said Mr.
/ Hermann's testimony proved the defendants
statement as reported by Farrell 10 he untrue
/ MISTAKE MAY HAVE BEEN MADE
! 1T Is possible" Justice Lambert said. that
soma mistake was made, and you should not lay
defendant have the silver bottle holder? The
| facts must be proved Miss Miller Of the Hart
! degen store testified that she sold the bottle
! holder to a man not the defendant Now n her
evidence is reliable. that ends that part Of the
! proposition. So long as she IS undisputed the
! defence claims you must believe her Then
there is the witness HUFF who corroborates Miss
Miller. and positively declared the defendant Is
not the man. The prosecution claims that the
!
chase Of the bottle holder are improbable The
| defendant claims that whatever view you may
take Of its proha abilities. it is fact that he and
| Miss Miller corroborate each other. Miss Miller
| told you there was but the one holder in the
! store"
The court spoke Of the evidence Of the boy
! Ehrhardt who said he wrapped UP the, parcel
at o'clock. and told the jury they might judge
/ for themselves the value Of his testimony when
! contrasted with the evidence of the boy Dan
Yetter. and of Mr.. Powell. who said It no
part Of Enrhardts duty to put up parcels.
! Justice Lambert explained 70 the jury that II
/ WAS their province to consider the value to he
/ put the testimony presented regarding the
! time Of the purchase Of the bottle holder.
But" he said. lit is my duty to tell you that
/ no evidence has been presented here to connect
/ this defendant with the holder At the same
time you are at liberty TO consider the conten-
/ ton Of the people in connection with the other
/ circumstances presented to you.
THE DEFENDANT AND THE POISON.
Now, the next question is. Did the defendant
procure the poison? 1t is claimed. the people
say, that the defendant had the means and the
/ ability to procure cyanide of mercury. He was
not obliged to subject himself to the risk of buy
| ing the poison. He could make it, That is one
/ of the circumstances Of the urged by the
! prosecution. The defendant told you ne never
made the poison Upon the theory that he did
not send the poison package that is reasonable
enough. but If you find from other facts that he
did send the package. then you may take into
consideration the fact of the facility with which
he could have obtained the poison"
/ Justice Lambert said he would discuss
that phase further. He went i'm detail into the
I trouble at the Knickerbocker Athletic Club and
Molineuxs complaint that Cornish was disre
spectful and dsobedient. and touched the
! tention Of the prosecution that MolineuXs mo-
tive for killing Cornish was the result of those
troubles.
THE TROUBLE WITH CORNISH
You viii remember he went on. the story
/ of Cornish's insults to the defendant and that
the defendant cOrrOborated that story in his own
/ testimony A jury may not be justified in be
/ lieving that a defendant would build up
monument of hatred out of such causes. but
| that is for you decide. If the cause isn't AIDE
I quate the defendant will he acquitted. 1t is
claimed, however. that the feeling of hostility
which led the defendant to leave the Knicker-
booker Athletic Club continued to rankle I'm his
bosom"
Justice Lambert referred the talk between
Feiles and Moneux six months after MolineuX
left the club and spoke of the contention of the