The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-09-04
TO TAKE UP BODY
Judge Mcpherson Hears More
Perkins Arguments.
Intimates That He Will Grant
ihe Order.
CONTEST EVERY POINT
Attorneys Claim Nothing Could
Be Revealed.
Vegetable Poison Would Not
Show in Analysis.

Claiming that the executors of the
Lucius H. Perkins estate had no auth
orlty or right to exhume the body OF
the late Lucius H. Perkins of Law
renee for the purpose of determining
the reason for his DEATH attorneys for
MS estate fought against an order to
TINS ERECT in the hearing held before
Judge Smith Mcpherson this morning
in the federal court on a suit brought
by attorneys representing the Mutual
Lie insurance company of New York.
Ihe attorneys for the Perkins estate
claim that an autopsy of the body will
not reveal anything, even if poison was
taken. since morphine is a vegetable
poison and cannot be detected upon an
analysis.
The hearing was continued at 2
o'clock. 1t is claimed this afternoon
that the desired order for exhumation
will be made. In this event the body
would be taken up Immediately and an
analysis made.
The questions adduced in the equity
suit first filed are interjected into the
hearing and the order of Judge Nc
court holding against the equity suit
filed by the insurance attorneys has
been modified. The fight to exhume the
body of Perkins for the purpose of hold
ing an autopsy has practically whipped
around to the first position. In the suit
filed on the law side the executors of
the estate were named as the plain
tiffs. When the hearing opened this
morning Judge Parker of Lawrence
raised the objection that the widow of
Lucius H. Perkins had not been made
a party to the suit, that the executors
who had been named as plaintiffs had
timating that Mrs. Perkins should have
been named as the plaintiff which
would throw the application for exhu-
nation largely upon the merits of the
equity suit first filed.
Should Exhume Body.
Judge Smith Mcpherson was ready
Immediately to order an exhumation
of the body had the attorneys for the
estate, c. F. Hutchings and Geo. D.
Barker, raised anything but senti-
He stated at the outset: II haven't
a particle of doubt, that if it were
necessary for the attorneys on the
other side to establish a point by the
cutors would exhume. Now when you
turn the case around, why should
this go to law. No person it Will be
presumed will destroy his own life.
Every person wants to live long. On
that account the courts hold for such
a presumption. Why should the in
surance company rebut that presump-
tion?
"This can be done in an orderly,
dignif1ed manner. Why should it not
be done in a seemly way, with as little
to the family. with as lit
tie mutiliation to the body as pos
sible? And unless there is something
besides sentimental reasons offered I
shall make an order for exhumation." |
your honor's intimations would |
preclude US possibly from making an
argument. We would like to file our
objections in writing We don't want
it understood that the objections at
Kansas City are our only objections"
said c. F. Hutchings, one of the at
for the executors.
1.-The court should have the truth |
before it," replied Judge Mcpherson. |
1.-The contents of the bladder, and the |
should be examined and per- !
haps the stomach and some of the !
arteries but that will be left to the |
experts to determine"
your honor assumes that an
will reveal the truth. We |
claim that an autopsy would not show |
BILE poison was used. We have scien- |
tific proofs to back this up said c. F. |
Might Clear UD the Case.
"But suppose the poison is found, |
then one step has been taken" replied |
Judge Mcpherson. Suppose the con-
tention true that because the poison I
was vegetable rather than mineral it !
could not be detected. then two con-
clusions would be arrived at in an eX-
animation. that he had taken no /
poison, and. secondly, that he had /
taken the poison but it could not be
found. Two conclusions would flow
from such an examination If the con-
tention is true. It seems to me if 1