The San Francisco call., 1904-03-24

state positively that the defendant was
the purchaser of the poison.
Il am not absolutely certain, was
the answer. but it was she to the best
of my knowledge and belief"
The cross examination tardily
brought out the fact that the arsenic
purchased from Grey was powdered
and not in lump form, which is an i'm
portant point, inasmuch as all the tes-
timony so far introduced by the prose-
cution is to the effect that the poison
in the candy was lump arsenic
Professor Thomas Price, the we'll
known local chemist, who has been en-
gagged in the profession for forty-two
years in this city, was next called. He
had taken seven pieces of the candy
from the box presented to him by Chief
of Police Lees and Detective McEey.
together with some powdered residue
| at the bottom of the box. When asked
| the results of his analyses knight in
| terposed an objection on the ground
/ that it had not been sufficiently shown
! by the prosecution that the box from
which Professor Price had taken the
candy was the same as that received
! by Mrs. Dunning in Dover. Judge Cook
| reserved his decision until he could
/ have an opportunity of having some of
] the testimony read to him and could
! examine authorities. He had not reach
ed a determination at the time of ad
| journment yesterday afternoon. The
witness was withdrawn temporarily
pending the ruling.
CANDY GIRLS TESTIFY.
Mrs. ]. j. Maginnis. of Redands,
Cal, was then called. In 1898 she
was Miss Sylvia Heaney, resld-
ing at 1414 Alabama street in
this city, and was a saleswoman at
Haas & Sons candy store at $40 Mar
ket street. On Sunday afternoon, July
13, of that year between the hours of
$3.50 anda4:30 o'clock a woman customer
| bought from her a fancy box of choco-
lates. The purchaser asked that the
box be not entirely filled, as she wished
to put some other things in it. She
noticed that the purchaser was nerv-
Gus and impatient. She identified the
box which the prosecution claims was
received by Mrs. Dunning at Dover as
similar in every way to that she sold
to the woman on July 13, 1898, and also
said that the wrapper was of paper
similar TO that used at Haas shop at
that time. Asked if the defendant was
the woman who purchased the candy,
the witness said that she could not say
positively, but that she resembled her
cutomer in general appearance. She
had seen Mrs. BotlSin at the City Hall
previous to the first trial, and from her
appearance and movements had con-
cluded that the defendant looked very
much like the woman who bought the
box of candy in question.
Mrs. ]. w. Clark, whose husband is
Nan empleye of the Mint and who re-
sides at 141s Howard street, was Miss
Kittie Dettner in 1898 and was en-
ployed as saleswoman at Haas &
Sons candy store. She was behind
the candy counter when Mrs Maginnis
served the woman customer on. July
13 of that year. At Mrs. Maginnis' re-
quest the witness handed her piece
of tissue paper, which was the first
wrapping for the box. She thought the
defendant resembled the purchaser in
general appearance, but could not
make positive Identification.
RECOGNIZE BOX.
i G. F. C. Drode, manager of the
candy store; George w. Haas, one of
the proprietors; Mrs. S. c. Jones' Miss
Anna Kramer and Miss Anna Jenson,
employees were called in turn to iden-
tify the box and candy in it as having
been purchased at Haas & Sons, which
they did in satisfactory manner.
The District Attorney asked each if
they had ever known poison to be used
In the manufacture of candy and was