The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-10
HE'S GUILTY
 SAY EssDGES -y Court of A. .als on Pat rick k.irder Trial. THE VOTE FOUR TO THREE Strong Dissenting Opinion is
 Rendered. Some Pretty Harsh Criticisms of Low CT Tribunal Induiged in--Anoth- CT Chapter in Famous New
 York Case.

| Albany, N Y., June 9.-The Court of l Appeals today by divided court. l voting four to three. sustained the lower courts in adjudging Albert T. | of murder in the first degree in caus- I ing the death of William Marsh Rice.
 On April !, 1902. Patrick was con | victed on an indictment charging him | with the murder of Rice by chloro- | form and mercury, administered to him during his sickness on September I 23, 1900. The case reached the Court | of Appeals on March 14 of this year l when David B. Hill, who appeared for the appellant. based his argument for a reversal mainly on the contention that the condition of Rice's body re- vealed by the postmortem examination might have been caused by fluids used in embalming.
 The prevailing opinion Is by Judge Gray. with whom concur Judges Bart lett. Haight and Werner. There Is a dissenting opinion by Judge O'Brien. Chief Judge Cullen and Judge vann. concurring, Chief Judge Cullen filing | also memorandum.
 Patrick has succeeded in postponing l the ultimate decision of his fate for over three years by a display of acumen and resourcefulness that has excited the wonder of the members of the bar and the. public at large. An Exhaustive Report.
 The opinion of the court, written by Judge Gray, is very exhaustive. re- viewing the formidable record in ey- cry detail and containing upwards of 16,000 words. Judge Gray sets forth that the theory of the people was that the defendant had conspired with Charles F.. Jones. the valet. or as sometimes called, the secretary, of Rice. to kill Rice. and that the de- fendant procured Jones to administer chloroform to him while he was asleep. in the accomplishment of their joint purpose. This purpose they say was inotiKed by sAes desire sfo obtain pos session of Rice's estate through a will in favor of the defendant, and through various transfers to him of .nroperties, all purporting to have been executed by Rice, but which had, in fact, been forged by the defendant. with Jones's aid.
 The defence Is based upon a denial that Rice's death was effected by vio- lent means, or that 1t was by the pro- curemept of the defendant; and the proposition is advanced that the forg- cries were not brought home to the defendant or if the evidence warrant ed the finding that they were, that that fact did net necessarily fasten upon him criminal agency in the murder.
 It was not claimed that Patrick per sonally committed the murder. for the prosecution had the voluntary confess sion of Jones that it was he who did 1t. induced and aided thereto by Pat rick: but the defendant was n princi- pal in the commission of the crime un- der our law, if he aided and abetted 1t, whether prIsent or absent or if he, directly or indirectly, "counselled, com handed, induced or procured" another to commit it. The trial, therefore, pre- sented these questions to the jury upon evidence, whether 1t was established that the death was the result of poi soning or whether that result was aid- ed, or abetted, induced or procured by this defendant.
 CircumstantiaI Evidence.
 Circumstantial evidence was sufficient for their determination, death being ad- mitted, if it was of such a character as to leave an inference of guilt, the only reasonable one possible from the facts disclosed.
 The jurors were warranted in be- lieving that death was caused by chloroform poisoning and that certain material facts sworn to by witnesses, other than Jones' taken by themselves, led irresistibly to the one inference, that defendants was the mind that had conceived the criminal act and induced It's commission. The evidence inde- pendently of the testimony of the ac- complice is fraught with a crushing im- plication of defendant in the deliberate purpose to kill Rice in order that he might possess his estate"
 Judge Gray then goes on to describe the alleged conduct of Patrick both before and after the death of Rice, pointing. as the judge does, to his pre- meditation and guilt of the murder within an hour after which. he says, the defendant appears and when the undertaken arrives, directs the remains to be cremated. He orders the em- balming when told that twenty-four hours must elapse before cremation would be possible. He carries off that night all that was of value In securi- ties and moneys. Early In the follow ing morning he brings to Jones and has him fill out the four checks which the latter had drawn to his order and which purported to have been signed by the deceased. in various amounts. aggre- gatinR $250,00O. He endeavors to ob- tain the money early In the morning upon one drawn upon Swenson & Sons; but fails because of the error of Jones in misspelling his name. This causes delay. results in the bankers learning of the death of his depositor and leads to investigations which result in the arrest of the two.
 JOnea's COnfessIOn.
 The opinion holds that Jones's con fession was sufficiently corroborated in all essential particulars and con- cludes that the physical presence of Patrick was not necessary. Tn the eve of the law he had been present fin inc person of his accomplice. the mis- erable tool whom he had fashioned for his purposes and had induced to do the killing.
 Tn my opinion justice does not de- napd that the defendanteshould have new trial unless error was committed upon this trial in the rulings of the court or in the charge to the jury which affected some substantial right of the accused"
 The dissenting judges hold that ma terial errors were permitted in the trial of the case and that important evidence in Patrick's favor was im- properly excluded. Judge O'Brien's opinion holds that 1t svas not proved and cannot be proved that Rice was q -Tz-- Wa..s