The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-11-12

he relied for conviction. turning at each
mention of Molneux's name to point his
finger at the defendant.
Molineux sat unmoved at the arraign-
ment. but attentive to every word of ii.
Not so with his father. The old general
was visibly affected by the words of the
prosecuting officer and Cecil Molineux. the
prisoners brother, was very nervous.
In his concluding words Mr.. Osborne
begged the jury not to let their feelings
run away. with their Judgment, and not
10 refuse TO convict through timidity
1t was past noon when Mr.. Osborne was
through. and then Justice Lambert sus-,
pended proceedings until Ills o'clock.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
At the afternoon session Justice Lambert
delivered his charge. Katherine ].
Adams" he began. "died on Dec. 2s 1885,
and the defendant is charged with the
responsibility for her death. The defend
ant may be convicted, If you think the
evidence adequate, OF murder in the first
degree; II you think we'll of murder in
the second degree, or of manslaughter in
the first 1egree, or of manslaughter in the
second degree"
Justice Lambert read from the statutes
the definition of the various degrees of
homicide, laying stress on the necessity
of deliberation and premeditation to con-
stitute murder in the first degree. 1T is
contended here by the people,, he went on,
that IL this defendant is found guilty he
will be guilty of murder in the first de-
gree The defendant, by his counsel, has
made no argument in this regard, but you
are required to consider those things in
reaching your decision. The defendant is
presumed to be innocent until the evidence
shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burden Cf proof never shifts II is
always with he State TO prove guilt and
not for the defendant to prove innocence.
1T is not easy to impart to jury the
legal definition of a reasonable doubt II
his guilt has not been shown to you be-
yond all reasonable doubt you must acquit
him. A reasonable doubt should be actual
and substantial and not founded on a mere
possibility
Judge Lambert summed up the admitted
facts In the case. the sending of the pack
age from the general postoffice; its re-
ceipt at the Knickerbocker Athletic Club
and its administration to Mrs. Adams by
Cornish, who received It at the club.
1T Is necessary" he said. for the State
to prove that the defendant sent this pack
age; that ii was received by Cornish and
innocently administered to Mrs. Adams
before you can find this defendant guilty
II is for you to say II the necessary
evidence has been submitted. One of the
most important efforts of the prosecution
has been to connect this defendant with
the address on this poison package The
State has attempted 10 do that by wit
nesses from banks and by witnesses
brought to you as handwriting experts
the defendant wrote that address. Unless
that Is proved the defendant cannot he
convicted of any crime. So you see that
is the central portion Of the evidence;
that is fact the State Is compelled to
prove.
Justice Lambert recited the evidence of
the handwriting experts on both sides and
said: II shall not discuss any of that
testimony. The law places the burden of
that discussion upon you. You are en-
titled to exercise your own judgment re-
QQr6fnQ these 6fCnufo6 nfnfo T,l-
ions of these experts are not Controlling
upon you. You are under no legal re.
quirements to believe what they told you.
You have TO take the responsibility for
your decision. If the peoples case stood
on the question of handwriting il should
be dismissed But If the contention of the
prosecution is sustained in other respects
you may consider the handwriting
Did the defendant obtain the TIFFANY
box from Tiffany & CO.? There is no evil
dence here that he did. But 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
bromo? He says he did not. There is no
evidence here TO contradict It, But IL was
In the box he had the oportunity to OBJ
tain
THE BOTTLE HOLDER.
Coming to consideration OF the bottle
holder. in which the poison was sent. JUS
tice Lambert said that Miss Miller and
HUFF agreed that Molineux was not the
purchaser. THE prosecution claims" said
he. that the occurrences. as related bv
Mr.. Hufr. of the purchase of the bottle
holder are improbable. The defendant
claims that whatever view you NAV take
as TO its probabilities, It is a fact that
he and Miss Miller corroborated each
other. Miss Miller told that there was but
the one holder iE the store"
Justice Lambert explained to the Jury
Gal-
the value 10 be put on the testimony nre-
sented regarding the time of the purchase
of the bottle. But" he said. 1T is INV
duty to tell you that no evidence has
fendant with the holder. At the same time
you are at liberty 10 consider the con-
tention OF the people in connection with
the other circumstances presented TO you
Now, the question is: Did the defendant
procure the poison. The defendant told
you he never made the poison on the
theory that he did not send the poison
package, that is reasonable enough but
IL you find. from other facts, that he did
consideration the facts of the facilities
with which he could have obtained the
poison"
at the Knickerbocker Athletic Club and
Molineux's complaint that Cornish was
disrespectful and di3obedient. and touched
on the conteation OF the prosecution that
MolineuxS motives for killing Cornish was
the result OF those troubles. You will re-
member" he went on, the story of Cor
nish's insult 10 the defendant and that the
defendant corroborated that story in his
own testimony. jury may not be justi-
fed In believing that a defendant would
build up a monument OF hatred out OF
such causes. but that Is for you to decide
Justice Lambert declared that the agree
ment made by Koch. the letter box man
TO sell his story exclusively 10 receive his
pay when he swore in the actual trial
10 the truth of his story was a felony
Another branch of this case 10 which
desire TO refer Is this: The defendant had
a perfect right TO try and point out the man