Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1902-06-05
SHOULD GET NEW TRIAL.
Justice Weaver Does Not Believe Mrs
Kuhn Gave Poison to Husband.

Kuhn Gave Poison to Husband.
People in this vicinity were much
interested in the case against Sarah
Kuhn, of Delta, who was tried and
convicted on the charge of numbering
her husband, Charles Kuhn, in Sep
TENDER, 1900, by placing poison in beer.
This interest was revived this week
when the supreme court overruled q
motion for a new trial and allowed the
life sentence to stand One of the
judges of the high tribunal, however,
dissented from the majority opinion of
the court and asserts that errors oc-
Cured in the lower court which are
grounds for new trial. Judge Weay-
er says:
In his dissenting opinion, which is
a lengthy and exhaustive one, Judge
Weaver says:
1T is not my purpose to disparage
circumstantial evidence. It is an es-
sential and indispensable instrument
which, if not wisely and conservative
ly applied, may easily work the gross
est injustice. The Importance of de-
tecting crime and Furnishing criminals
is not to be overlooked, but it is of no
less Importance that no person shall
be convicted or punished upon any.
thing less than the final measure of
proof required by the established rules
of law"
Judge Weaver holds that while the
evidence may justify suspicion, it falls
"deplorably short of proof of crime"
He holds as to the majority opinion
that "the differences drawn from prov
nrs annanIn1 70 10 Nff
and unnatural"
'The framework of the case," says
Judge Weaver, "as made by the state
and upheld by the majority, may be
stated as follows:
"First-That defendant was unhap-
py in her married life, and be-
ing also the beneficiary of her hus-
bands will. had a double motive for
his murder.
"Second-That the husband died of
strychnine poisoning.
"Third-That defendant had an op-
portunity to administer the poison.
"Fourth-That the husband, just be-
| fore his death, accused defendant of
the crime.
| Every so-called discriminating fact
and circumstance disclosed upon the
trial clusters about these four propo-
sitions. Beyond them there is nothing
and though we were to concede that
each of these propositions has been
clearly established, the case still lacks
material elements which must exist in
order to warrant the state in demand
| ing conviction"
AS to the defendants financial inter-
est arousing criminal motive, Judge
Weaver says: ITO say that such an in.
terest in itself affords ground of sus.
picion is to cast the shadow of crime
over every household and plant the
seeds of fear and distrust in the most
sacred relationships of life.
Charles Kuhn had made will naming
defendant as sole beneficiary. In this
he did only what hundreds of husbands
are doing every day without dreaming
they are furnishing the state with evi
dence upon which to convict their wild.
ows of murder"
Judge Weaver reviews the alleged
errors in the court below at length
and comes to the conclusion there
were errors that make a reversal of
the trial court imperative. One of the
points he makes relative to the con,
versation between Mrs. Kuhn and An
drew Smith, August 6, when it is al
legged the young woman cried out in pas
sionate appeal to Smith against fur
Their continuation of her loveless ex
| istence with Kuhn. The lower court
excluded the testimony of Smith on
this meeting, and Judge Weaver holds
this was grave error on the part OF
| the district judge.