Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-09-25
FUDGE EVANS RULING
Some of Reasons Why Court
Dismissed Charge of Murder
Against Blydenburgh
STATE FAILED TO MAKE CASE
Court Points Out Discrepancies in the
Testimony and Shows Weaknesses
of States Expert Evidence-criti-
cism of Former County Attorney
Other News.
.ecial 70 Timss-I,rpublican.

Special TO Times Republican.
Eldora, Sept. 25.--The transcript o
the order of Judge Evans in instruct
ne the jury to return a verdict of &C
initial in the case of E.. S. Blyden'
,ursl,, recently tried for wife muir
der. has been received. The court
ruling was lengthy and reviewed th'
states case at length and its failure
to connect defendant with the dea'i
of his wife. In part Judge Evans SAID
Rv so slender a thread does lhs
states case hang that in order TO hoio
II together at this point. reliance mus
be placed upon the opinions OF It's eA'
merits to the very uttermost.
On the part of the defense, sever
practicing physicians and two special
lists in chemistry and pathology. %
large experience III our state uhlVei-
sity and agricultural college, nave tes-
tilted in contradiction to the OPINION oi
the states two experts.
The substance of their evidence Is
that a condition of the tomach SUP
stantially as described by DR.. Hartman
Is often found in human mac ato
that 1t is produced by many natural
causes which they name. uremia is
one of them.
They also testify, that the condition
described did not of itself furnish any
basis for an opinion that it was caused
by arsenic.
That there is no way Known TO SCI
ence whereby the producing cause OF
such u condition car be ascertained ex-
cept by the clinical history of The par
ticular case.
DR.. Morse, the attending physician.
diagnosed the case as uremia- rms
diagnosis was confirmed by a mi
analysis of the urine. 1t is shown by
several lady witnesses, apparently dls-
Interested, and widely separated from
each other, that for several weeks prior
to her death. Mrs. ~Blydenburgh pc
! lieyed herself to be suffering from kid
ney trouble, and she so stated to these
witnesses.
In reaching this conclusion, have
given a second thought to the testi-
mony offered by the state, and ruled
out by the court.
The testimony of greatest apparent
Importance which was ruled out, was
that relating to Rough on Rats
The state produced witness Mccarthy
| by whom it expected to prove the COM
| position of Rough on Rats. SO as ITO
come within the ruling of the supreme
court on the former appeal.
The state was unfortunate in the
selection of it's witness. in that the dis
closures of his cross examination rem
dered him incompetent to testify on
question.
Let us, however, for a moment dis
regard his cross examination, and con-
slider only his direct evidence on be-
half of the state. The substance OF
his testimony is that Rough on Ratsais
composed of two poisons in substan-
tally equal parts, with a little lamp
black thrown in for coloring, and ar
senic is one of the poisons.
In Offering this testimony. the state
necessarily proceeds upon the theory
that the defendant administered Rough
on Rats to the deceased. II he did so,
he administered to her both poisons.
The states chemist has sworn positive
ly that there was no other poison in
the organs of the deceased thai ar
senic. The states proof of the rpu
delecti rests upon this testimony of it's
chemist. If this statement of the
chemist is not true, hen the state has
failed to prove the corpus delecti. If
the statement of the chemist is true,
her it proves that Rough on Rats
could not have been administered to
the deceased.
This testimony, therefore, could AVE
availed the state nothing, even tho
the witness had proved competent.
The state offered no other evidence to
show the possession of arsenic by the
defendant.
Earlier in the trial I held that the
state vas not bound as a matter Of law
to trace arsenic into the possession Of
the defendant, provided that the other
circumstances We're sufficiently strong
to prove guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, and I so hold now.
But the states case is necessarily
weakened by the failure at this point.
When we. reflect that no person could
lawfully, sell arsenic to the defendant
without making the sale a matter of
record, and reflect on the great pub
.licity which this case has had, a strong
Inference naturally arises that If the
defendant had purchased any arsenic,
the state would. long ago have been in
possession Of the facts.
Another offer of testimony ruled out
was that Of MIR. Blue, the life insur-
ance agent. We examined this witness
in h absence Of the jury for the pur-
pose of determining its admissibility.
He testified that shortly after the
defendant was married he met him one
day at the postoffice and solicited him
to take Insurance. The defendant re-
piled that he had all the insurance he
wanted, n that If he took any more,
he would want some for his wife.
The witness construed this statement
to mean that the defendant wanted i'm
surance On the life of his wife, and
answered that his company did not
write joint policies.
This was the whole conversation and
the parties separated. I held the evil
dence was entitled to no consideration
and ruled ii out as im,naterial.
If the defendant had obtained life
on his wife's life in his own
the fact would have peer adj
as evidence both of motive
md of preparation.