The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1907-06-20

place, said he did but had not tried |
to buy it himself Witness could not |
be positive whether he brought up |
the selling Of the place or not, but |
thought the first of it was that he |
asked him about selling it. Witness
said he told it about kittrell that the |
place could be bought. He did not |
know that three persons wrote to
buy the place and had not heard
that two people wrote to buy it and
that Mr.. Kittrell cut them off by |
phoning.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
On redirect examination witness
said he had heard that Mr.. kittrell
bought the place fer 81 10000. He
had also heard that Guy Banres tried
to buy it but did not know why he
did not buy it. Had never heard
DR.. Rowland say why he did not sell
it before the child died.
PROF. W. A. WITHERS.
Prof. W. \. Withers the most impor-
tant witness to be examined was at this
juncture asked to take the witness
stand. All was expectancy and deathc
like silence pervaded the crowded court
room. 1t was understood that the
charge against DR.. Rowland would
stand or fall by what the report OF the
chemist showed-whether analysis ofthe
stomach and viscera of the dead child
revealed the presence of poison or not.
Prof. Withers gave his age as 43 and his
business as professor of chemistry in the
Agricultural and Mechanical College He
graduated in chemistry in 1888 and has
been professor of chemistry ever since
-23 years-graduatinga at Davidson, n.
c., and at Cornell. A student of chem
istry from 1881 until 1888 and a prac-
ticing chemist since 1884, his experience
has covered wide range Of study and
| research. Asked what experience he had
had in toxicology witness said he had
separated poison from three, arsenic from
one, strychnine from one, morphine from
one, and located poison which was
| claimed to have been administered and
| where it was found not necessary to
have analysis; examined one and found
no poison, and the one in question. Did
had never seen him. On May 21st he re-
4 SCINCu IL Oiu bl Ooui lllli uChCt "udU
was said to be the stomach and other
organs of David Austin Rowland, the
said articles being referred to him for
chemical analysis He made the analy-
sis, the instruments used being of the
latest type, the same as those used by the
most efficient chemists. Witness said he
tested for all known poisons except those
which DR.. Tucker said it was not neces-
sary to test for. Asked by Mr.. Zollicoffer
what the result of this analysis was,
Prof. Withers stated that he found no
poison present 'None whatever" was
the question propounded "None what
ever, was the reply. "You found moth
ing in the stomach OF a poisonous char
acter that would produce death?' "No
poison" AS il to emphasize the matter
further Mr.. Zollicoffer asked "Did you
find any article OF poison that might
produce death?" "None," was the an
swer given. "Then | understand that
you, having had 20 odd years experience
and having used the very latest methods
for observing and detecting the presence
and character OF poison, and having
stated that there was none to be found,
that the analysis is completed, and no
poison OF any kind was found in the
stomach or other organs?" "None, sir"
Prof. Withers again declared, and this
concluded the examination.
DEFENDANT IS DISCHARGED.
Mr.. Zollicoffer then arose and stated
the case very briefly why an investiga-
ton had en..made. The symptoms of
the child's death and the suspicious cir
cumstances surrounding it were such as
to require this hearing. He said the ex-
animation had been conducted with the
idea that Dr. Rowland should not be
prosecuted but that the murder OF the
child, if it had been murdered, should be
vindicated. No one was gladder for Dr.
Rowland's innocence to be established
than he and in behalf of the Solicitor OF
the State, and as the representative of
the relatives of the child, who had en-
ployed him to prosecute the case, he
asked that the prisoner be released from
custody.
Mr.. Hicks, on behalf of the defense,
thanked Mr.. Zollicoffer for the liberality
and fairness with which the hearing had
been conducted. He said that there were
some relations of the child and of DIR.
Rowland who had believed in his charac-
ter and integrity, and had not thought
that the hearing was the proper course
1t was ruled and held that there was
not sufficient evidence upon which the
defendant should be held or placed upon
trial for the charge against him, and he
was discharged from custody under the
warrant against him, Justice Gary de-
livering the opinion of the court
AS stated last week DR.. Rowland was
placed under arrest again Immediately
after being released, and taken to Raleigh
on warrant charging him with the
murder OF Eengineer Charles II. Strange,
whose widow he married a few weeks
after the sudden and mysterious death oi
her husband. The hearing was held
Monday. DR.. Syme who analyzed the
stomach of the dead engineer reported
that no poison was found, but this did
not end the matter as in the case OF the
alleged poisoning OF his little son. Leav.
ing the analysis out OF the question alto.
gether the prosecution introduced mum
Der of witnesses to show probable
cause and sufficient damaging and in
eliminating evidence appears to have
been presented to cause Justice OF the
Peace Separk to bind both DIR. Rowland
and his wife over to the Superior Court
Of Wake county and they were committed
to jail without bail. Since the arrest o.
Mrs. Rowland on the Goth OF May
charged with completely in the alleged
murder Of her husband, she has been out
on 100000 cash bond, which she fur
nished herself
Cures Blood and Skin Diseases, Itch.