Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1912-10-18

L 6hOAAAA IL
statement which the writer said had
been made by MacFarland to her
| against his wife? You will remember
the letter.
1.-THE concluding part of this letter
is as follows:
at have tried so hard to study into
it, and il you did say so what could
have been your motive? But it is all
Greek to me, unless 1t is that you
want to get rid of me entirely. Per-
haps Mrs. B. wants to make trouble
so that you car be free to marry
Florence, but as long as I live you
have a father as long as 1 am alive
to take are of Them
Does that suggest that at least a
year before her death Mrs. MacFar-
land had some little idea hat there
was at least a friendly relation ex-
listing between Florence Bromley and
her husband? Doesn't 1t suggest that
even if there was, she would never
consent to anything which would OPP
crate to deprive her children of a
father?
LUCE Lhhh 0ne6Oob ilti Oi Woditi
give her consent to a divorce?
"There are SO many facts in this
case, gentlemen, that bear upon the
various questions you have to resolve
before reaching a verdict that It
wouldn't be proper for me to discuss
them all. i am only pointing out to
you what seems to me to be the ques-
tons to be considered and the prom
inent features of the evidence, as the
evidence strikes my mind, to be re-
called and applied in determining the
questions.
Us Prisoner Responsible?
And now on hat branch of the
case I conclude as I began, by saying
that, if, after a full consideration of
all the testimony which bears upon
that one point-that is, the question
of suicide-it you cannot say that
you are satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt thai you have an abiding con-
viction this woman did not commit
suicide, then you ought to acquit this
defendant. But if, upon the other
hand, you are SO convinced that the
evidence proved to you beyond a rea-
sonable doubt hat this woman did
not commit suicide, you take up the
question: Is the prisoner at the bar
criminally responsible for her death?
IT won't stop to describe the prep
arations of the cyanide. mcfarland
admits that he got the cyanide in
August, just prior to the time when
he contemplated going to Philadel-
phia, just prior to payday, to get the
silver that was in Philadelphia. AS
I understand 1t, his wife suggested to
him at the time thai the silver would
be so furnished that it would require
a good deal of rubbing up to put it in
~presentable condition., and tina that
would be his job, and hal he said
that if he should be compelled to take
the job on his shoulders he would use
cyanide.
Now, as I recall his testimony on
the stand, he said that was the rea
son he got the cyanide In the form of
crystals. But he did not get the
silver.
IF his wife died of cyanide poison,
you escape the conclusion tina
she died because she took the con-
tents OF that bottle! Inere Is no evil
dence that there was any other cya-
hide in the house at the time of her
death.
IF she took the cyanide from that
bottle, is MacFarland responsible for
her death?
Now, suppose he didn't put it there
with any intention Of having his wife
AXE it-that 1t was a mere act or
carelessness on his part, and that he
really did get it for the purpose which
he has declared moved him to do 1t
and for no other it does not
necessarily follow that he shall go
free, that your verdict should be oil
acquittal.
For, if his wife took that poison,
and YOU shall say that the reason