New-York tribune., 1912-01-31
|0NACF ARLAND Defence
pbof That He Killed Wife Lack
ing, Says Lawyer.
IhRy TO DECIDE TO-DAY
Attorney for Alleged Poisoner
demands Acquittal on Ground
Of Prosecutions Failure.

.,. l,e, Farland murder trial came to an
mi end before Chief Justice Gummere,
!. Newark. yesterday, when tho defence
.ontspded that the state he'd not made
case. called only two witnesses and
rssted. The court will charge the jury this
o-rlnr and by niChtfall ii is expected
che accused man Will know his fate.
same excitement was injected into the
rroceednss YESTERDAY when Prosecutor
wilbur A. Mott. in summing up, referred
% the case Of the Rev. G. V. T. Richeson
and 10 the murder for which Henry Clay
psattie was pUt TO death in Virginia He
,,,antiored these IN trying to impress upon
,he fury that MacFarland deliberately
rIanrcd the death Of MS wife with cyanide
ncisoning so that he could take up legally
with Florence BROMLEY. Of Philadelphia.
4 feature Of the days proceedings was
the introduction 10y the defence of a state
r,ent made by MacFarland to the Prose
cutors detectives and the Newark police
the day ne was placed under arrest for the
death of Mrs MacFaTldnd. The state had
carefully avoided all reference to this state
ment. and when It was announced that
the statement would not be put forward
nv the prosecution. Frank NJ. McDermt,
counsel for the defendant. insisted upon
having a copy of H. He got the original
and with the sanction of the court, read
II 10 the jury.
By this the defence hoped to prove to
the jury that MacFarlands wife knew of
the presence of the cyanide in a bottle
which had originally contained bromide
This phase of the case was discussed in
the statement by MacFaTland, when he said
he bld his wife of having brought home
the poison in crystal form from the Crock
er-Wheeler plant. where he Eas employed
a. advertising manager. The rest OF the
statment explained the defendants move
mems on The day his wifes body was
fcUid.
Tie prosecution. however, pointed out the
fact that in the statement MacFarland also
saiC that he mixed the cyanide with water,
mailing solution which ne placed in the
bromide bottle. and that thereafter he did
notinform his wife about the poison. The
woman did not know. her husband had
plaed the poison in liquid form in her
bromide bottle the prosecutor insisted.
several letters were introduced in the
tril, some of them classified by the state
an defence as being unfit for publication.
~ VIII bt SubuHNlNu W lhC JNiN ~ SA''
IN relations that are said to have existed
beween Miss Bromley and the defendant.
Tk missives admittedly written by the
Philadelphia young woman were regarded
b. the defence equally as important to
ttr side as 10 the state
One of the missives was written by Mac
ljrland after his wifes death and was to
Nss Bromley. II was the letter in which
u defendant, telling of his wife's death
al OF the fact that he was held for it,
bgnded the charge as preposterous and
cltioned the recipient not to worry
Tho third missive was request to Leo
gorney. Of Philadelphia, secretary of the
b. Scouts of America, that ne take care
MacFarlands young son, Robert until
ia authorities had disposed of the charge
sainst the defendant. Involving Tierneys
anne the prosecutor referred TO the same
IAN in addressing the jury by referring to
Tierneys Germantown annex" He said
I was not the refusal of Tierney's wife to
axe charge of the child, but the attitude of
Germantown" The prosecutor did not
make himself clear. but told the jury they
would understand things when they read
the batch of letters TO he submitted to
them.
The only witnesses called by the defence
were the uncle of the defendant and De-
tective Sergeant Godfrey. of the Prosecutors
staff MacFarland's uncle testified that on
several occasions he knew that the Mac
Farlands had used cyanide in their home
for cleaning iewelry and silverware. The
state had emphasized the fact that no jew
elry was found to substantiate the claim of
MacFarland that he took the poison home
with which TO clean jewelN. A lot Of
silverware that was put In as evidence
was identified by the witness as the prop
erty Of the NacFaTlands.
The defence also attempted TO show that
Mrs MacFarlanG might have found cyanide
in any Of several dozen bottles tina. were
found in the house and many Of which were
labelled poison.
In summing up Mr.. McHermit said there
was nothing but conjecture on tho part Of
the state in trying 10 send Mach arland 10
the electric chair. Charges that MacI'ar-
land and the Bromloy gil, made by the
state, were "mord perverts," tire lawyer
said. were not to be defended by him. he
insisted the prosecutor had failed to estab-
lish the charge against his client and asked
for an acquittal.