Amador ledger., 1906-07-20
Five Cents Per Copy.

It would also be found there. The pro-
o lessor did testify that he found no
q chloride of zinc or bichloride of mer-
curry, but did not say why he did not
S lind them. He testified also that he
g found no trace of formaidihyde or of
[ alum, but the reason for this, as he
says, is because he did not look for
. them. As to the presence of arsenic
? IN the stomach. he did not testify that
it could not have gotten into the
t stomach from the embaIming fluid.
His only testimony on that point was
that he found there the quantity of
, arsenic stated.
: Dr Morgan. an equally reputable
: chemist, stated his belief that the ar
senlc in the stomach came from the
em6almlng fluid, and in addition
said: My experience has taught me
to believe that it is impossible for an
organ in the human body to be within
a few inches of embalming fluid for
the period of forty eight days without
absorbing some of the arsenic. The
embalming fluid injected into the
rlght TEMPORAL artery would travel up
the femoral artery few inches and
reach the aorta, which is the largest
artery in the body, and being mixed
with blood would pass on up to the
heart. Now the stomach lies right
over the aorta, not being separated
from the interior of the aorta by more
than an inch, and it would onIy-have
to travel that small distance of tissue
IN order to reach the stomach - He
further testified, giving his reasons
therefor, which space prevents quot
ing, that it was possible for arsenic
to pass frsm the EN- mbaiming fluid to
the stomach without the chloride of
zinc or bichloIid of mercury showing
Itself there; that arsenic when in
Jected into dead body will COM
mence ditfusing itself through the
tissue at once, while the other salts
Will not Immediately commence to
do SO, nor will they 'until such times
as the body turns to liquid,'' when
they will all travel In addition to
this, he made an experiment with the
embalming fluid of Mr. Daneri upon
the stomach of a deceased person.
which actual experiment confirmed
the opinion he entertained and ex-
pressed. The opinion of Dr. Morgan
with respect to these matters was not
disputed by any medical or other
opinion given in the case. So much
for the evidence relating to arsenical
poisoning.
Al oNOAIlOu " Gu6S0 IaCGS
relative to the claim of the prosecu-
tion that the death of deceased was
occasioned by poisoning there was
other evidence, to be referred to
generally.
Reputable expert physicians testified
that the autopsy made by the autopsy
physicians was incomplete, and was not
sufficient to determine whether the
deceased had died from typhoid fever
or not, while the same physicians tes-
titled that frcm the symptoms attend
ing the sickness of deceased, they
were satisfied that she died of typhoid
fever. 1t was further shown by the
evidence of disiuterested parties that
defendant and his wife had lived hap
PLY together, and that during her
illness he treated her kindly, and
seemed to do everything that he could
to help her and alleviate her suffer-
ings.
This is as tar as we deem it necessary
to state the evidence id the case. We
do not concern ourselves with many
suggestions, more of an argumentative
character than otherwise, (but even
as such quite cogent) made by counsel
for appellant, which he claims are in
consistent and incompatible with the
theory of the prosecution that the
death OF deceased was occasioned
through poisoning. We content our
selves with the evidence as we have
stated it, which in our judgment, did
not warrant the verdict of the jury.
1t will be perceived that the evil
dence in the case relied on to estab-
llsh the guilt of the defendant is
practically circumstantial, and it is
elementary law that wheie the evil
dence is of such character it must
be not only consistent with the hypo-
thesis of guilt, but inconsistent with
any other rational conclusion. The
deduction to be drawn from these cir
cumstances is, ordinarily, one for the
jury, but where, in case such as this
every circumstance relied on as IN
crlmlnating, is equally compatible
with innocence, there is a failure of
proof necessary to sustain a convic-
tlon, and the question presented is
one of law for the court. Ihe prose-
cution has the burden of proof. The :.
defendant is presumed innocent until
the proof satisfies the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt of his guilt The
right of a jury to return a verdict of
guilt is not an arbitrary right. The
sutticiency of their verdict must be
tested by determining whether the
evidence upon which that verdict is
framed was of such a character that
they could say from it that in their
Judgment no reasonable doubt of the
defendants guilt existed. Now con-
sidering the evidence in the case at
bar under these elementary rules of
law, there was no proof in the case
that the wife of defendant died from
arsenical poisoning; in fact, the evil
dence is not only consistent with the
claim of defendant that she did not,
but it may be said that the prepon-
derance of evidence in the case is to
the effect that she did not. As to
poisoning by veratrum viride. Aside
from the opinion of the experts that
Mrs Staples died of typhoid fever, .
from which she was concededIy suffer
ing, the clinical and pathological con-
ditions tend to show that she did not
die from the administration of that
poisonous drug. The only evidence
at all as to veratrum viride is that the
defendant got it, and that he admin
istered to her liquid which looked
like 1t. The most that can be said of
this particular evidence is that it
might have been sufficient to have
raised a suspicion in the mind of the
jury that he did administer It, Gel
tainly 1t was not effective for any
other purpose. This, however, could
only be suspicion, and no jury has
a right to declare forfeited the life of
a defendant upon mere suspicion.