New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-07

Stephenson
mana again. and she said she was greatly wor-
ried about the time of the first trial because
her son. then only twenty years old. insisted
upon getting married. She told of visiting the
ONCE of Weeks Battle. and telling them the
story she had Just told TO the jury.
9-4o9 o9 are are a Christian woman? Al hope 50.
on;. 9-And your praying upon that occasion was
you feel you need guidance? A--Yes sir
NO one had any further questions to ask the
witness. and after she had Identified DR. Vel
ton. of No $40 Union-st Brooklyn. who stood
up for the purpose. her family physician.
Justice Lambert adjourned court until this
morning.
SETBACK FOR PROSECUTION
The prosecution was defeated early in the
cross-examinatton Of David y CarvaIho vester-
day morning. when District Attorney Jerome
went TO the aid of Mr.. Osborne in the effort to
get before the jury one OF the excluded Barnet
letters The letter. which had been sent to u
firm in Connections advertising certain rem
edy. was signed HI. C. Barnet" and the writer
was required to fill out a form in which ne gave
the most exact description of himself including
helsnt, age, weight, measurements of the BODY
ana TOLD that he was about 70 get married and
also that there was consumption in his family
soon after beginning the cross-examination
OF MI Carvalho, who testified as an expert in
handwriting. that Molineux could not have writ
ten the address on the poison package. Mr.. Oz-
borne asked the witness TO say if the hand that
wrote the poison package address wrote the
Barnet prescription blank, at the same time
handing 70 the witness the letter. F,x-CyovArnor
Black at once objected, and Justice Lambert
| said the letter was excluded District Atrornav
| Jerome said:
| understand by YOUR honor's former ruling
that you exclude the exhibit offered as a stand
ara OF handwriting, on the ground that sum
| clent standards are already in evidence
| You misapply the ruling" said the corrt
The exhibit was excluded lest t might he pretu-
( dicial TO the accused -s.
/ We offered IL now on different erour5s D., 40.
| Jerome went on We wish TO show bv rhA d.
/ fences own experts that the hand which vrro+.
| that diagnosis blank wrote the address On +ha
poison wrapper We can show in the disgnois
| plank description Of the writer made bv him,
sex Inen we want 10 show rhut the writer os
1 lia' paper wrote The poison wrapper Then we
VIII show by argument and the evidence of the
defence's own witness thar this defendant -.
| thls description of himself. and that he also
wrote the poison wrapper as well as the other
disputed writings
1 object Ex-Governor Black said. 1t is nor
! 1alr TO make these statements 70 the i1rv a.
ject TO the argunent''-
ahead Mr.. Jerome" ~"
y would De an outrage and disgrace" Mr..
Jerome went on. TO endeavor 70 cer tbass ~.
ters before the jury 10 prejudice rber, -
TINS or any defendant. and there is no z,,ct -.
'entlon on our part. We desire the a,5r,izst,r,
OF the exhibit merely 70 prove what vs. COW
tehd we can prove from the Handwriting and
from the personal description it contains of tna
iiIiH We oeheVe the experts for the defence will
ADMIT wrote the poison package paper"
! Have YOU fnished2" asked the Court as ,rr
Jerome stopped speaking
Yes. sir"
Excluded. Justice Lambert said. The Corr+
sees no reason 10 reverse its former ~,,If,,,- =,
An audible sigh of relief went IN fro-, a.,
body of the crowded court 1t was avfaent +b,r
the women who composed almost exclusively.
the audience were in fullest sympathy with
Molineux
CFOSS-ENAMINING CARVALHO.
Your reasoning" Mr.. Osborne asked. con-
tinuing his cross-examination of the expert ia
based upon the assumption that the writing OF
the wrapper is not in a disguised hand?"
Yes. sir; it is not disguised"
Mr.. Osborne read from the minutes of the
grand jury which indicted Moneux. and asked
him if he had not there said the writing was
disguised Carvalho said he had said there was
an attempt to disguise the writer's hand
Q-Then you believe would write the ad-
dress on package OF 2oison in his natural hand?
his hand. or he might get one to write it
Q,-Don't you think it would be fair to assume
9noeT 9, sqSh SireSSnstanceS that the writing
cidedly yr gnfai1 d1utS 10 ass assume me anything;
in the Barnet letter and in the conceded writins-
o;-Don't you md that the defendant Invariably
makes a oreak When ne writes an - before a &c
Q.-Don't you ind the break in the word ~ath
ietie'' ,S95tH on the POI poison Paekase? Al do.
ing. don't You find the u" invariably ends in =
Q.-Does not the 81 IN "th'' Of athletic. On The
poison wrapper show that popularity? 4-It
Q.-Don't you find. in the conceded writing % the
Gele1Gant s an lncln3tlon 70 an upward slant as
the writing approaches the right of the paper?
Q.-Does not the writing on the wrapper slam.
Snshtly upward on the wrapper? A-Yes. sir.
Mr.. Carvalho under the questioning OF coun-
sci. identified several other such Hkenesses be-
tween selected specimens of the conceded and
request writings. and the poison package wrap
per. The jurors listened with every indication
Of intent interest. and with the photographs
copies of the exhibits in their hands. followed
every word OF counsel and witness. NIolineux.
os all in the court seemed uncOncerned-
Did you form any opinion in this case" Mr.
Osborne asked. before you examined all the
exhibits?"
II did not see all the exhibits. l saw many
Of them and ! saw Molineux write before T
reached the conclusion that he did not write
the poison package wrapper"
In your twenty-four years an expert did
you ever see any paper like that upon which the
conceded Burns and the disputed Cornish let