The Tupelo journal., 1906-02-23
MISSISSIPPIM MATTERS
MRS. STUART NOT GUILTY.

MRS. STUART NOT GUILTY.
Her Husband, Whom She Was Ac-
cused of Poisoning, Was Not
Allowed to Testify.
In the circuit court at Woodville last
week, Mrs. Castillo Stuart, SO years old,
was declared not guilty of attempting
to poison her husband, William G. Stu
art, on Jan. 5, 1906, by administering
morphine poison.
The verdict of the jury followed in
structions from Judge Theo. Mcknight,
appointed special judge to try the case,
as the regular, judge, Moses Wilkin-
son, is a h~alf-brother of accused. The
instructions followed a ruling of Judge
Mcknight on an objection to the testi-
mony OF William G.. Stuart, the hus-
band, which was raised by the defense.
Stuart was about to testify that his wife
administered an enema which contain
ed morphine poison, and that he lapsed
into Inconsistencies, which nearly re-
suited in his death, when Mr.. Radcliffe
cried, II object!'
State your objection" said Judge
Mcknight.
The point raised by Mr.. Ratclife was
that under section 1854 of the Missis-
sippi annotated code of 1902 there could
be no punishment when poison admin
istered was not actually taken or vol
unfairly taken by the person to whom
1T IS administered. Stuart, he contend
I'd, did not actually take-that is, vol
UNFAIRLY take--the enema.
District Attorney Webb tried to show
by the witness that he did voluntarily
take the enema, but he was interrupted
by the following ruling of the court:
AT common law there was no indi-
vldual and specific offense of poisoning.
1t was simply on means of committing
a homicide by shooting, drowning and
the like. To undertake to kill a person
by poison at common law would include
assault and battery, and would be in
dlctable as an assault and battery, with
intent to kill by means of poisoning.
Our legislature has never made the
drowning of a person, for example, a
SPECIFIC, separate and distinct ~offense,
as 1t has an attempt to poison. 1t has
made the administering of poison which
shall have been actually taken by the
party, and from which death did not en-
sue, an offense punishable by a mini
mum penalty of ten years in the peni-
Tertiary.
The taking referred to by the
statute is held by all authorities l have
ever been able to find to mean a swal-
lowing and the voluntary act of the
party taking it, and does not include an
assault and battery. | think that the
proof offered here is perfectly admissi-
BILE If the indictment in the case was
for the Common law offense of assault
and battery, with intent to kill by pois-
oning, but | do not think it admissible
under the Indictment, which is based
upon the statute section 1854 of the code
of 1902. 1t is no answer to this propo-
sition to say that Stuart knew of and
was willing to receive the enema, be-
cause this willingness was based on his
belief, as he states, that there was
nothing wrong with the enema. 1t can
rot be said that he agreed to some
thing the existence of which he knew
nothing"
The section under which the ruling
| was made is as follows.
Every person who shall be convict
ed of having administered, or having
caused to be administered, or procures
to be administered, any poison to any
human being with intent to kill such
human being, and which shall have
been actually taken by such human be-
ing. whereof death shall not ensue.
shall be punished by Imprisonment in
the penitentiary for not less than ten
years."
District Attorney Webb made a des-
perate attempt to have Stuart testify,
but to every question he put Mr.. Rat
cliffe objected, and in order to complete
a record for the appeal to the supreme
court, which he announced he would
take, he was compelled to exclude the
jury. When the jury returned Judge
Mcknight instructed them to bring in
a verdict of not guilty for the defend
ant, and they did so without leaving
their seats.