Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-01-07

Dul the law court does not concede
these contentious. 1t holds that the
poison could not have been deposited
IN the bottle by the dealer and was
not deposited by Mrs. Bernier Ward
mad the exclusive opportunity. Hence,
ny process Of elimination, Ward IS
guilty.
| The case was unusual in other
ways. Although more than year
mas elapsed since the trial. and many
months since the arguing of the ap-
peal fnal decision. as stated was not
known until Thursday morning. And
unquesti"nably the jury's verdict came
as surprise to very many, the pop
uiaf Impression. gained by reading re-
ports OF the trial. being that. although
ward might DC guilty. his guilt had
not been positively shown.
The rescript follows:
The Rescript
Spear, J)
IN TINS case Edgar NJ. Ward was in
dicted for the murder of Marie Bernier
of Lewiston.
FROM the evidence in the case We are
OF the opinion that the jury was war
! ranted in finding beyond a reasonable
doubt the following facts:
a The corpus deficit.
&, That Marie Bernier was poisoned
ny taxing internally sulphate of strych-
MIA.
90 That the medium through which
IT was conveyed to her stomach was
whiskey.
4 That the whiskey was furnished
j by the respondent and contained in
two IA ounce bottles called small pints.
O) Ihat neither bottle when pur-
chased by. him, contained any strych-
nine.
o) Ihat one bottle was drunk by sew
eral people. one-half by himself and
Mrs Bernier, without any evidence or
erect whatever of styrchnia or other
drug.
ca That one-half of the other bottle
was drunk by the respondent and de-
ceoent between $40 and little after
Is o'clock in the evening without any
poisonous or unusual effect.
90 That he alone took another drink
-offered to Miss Giroux, a little after
S o'clock
CD That there was left in the bottle
only two drinks of whiskey.
tlD That about half past nine he and
| Mrs Bernier drank the two drinks re-
naming in the bottle.
CD That in the bottle that contained
these two drinks was desoprited a
quantity of strychnine that killed Mrs.
nernier IN the course of half an hour,
az ana brought the respondent to the point
None of the above facts is in dispute
. except the kind of poison which caused
. death and the wood alcohol theory was
, abandoned. A long controversy arose
, in the trial as to how long n time if
would require to complete the solution
OF sulphate of strychnia in whiskey.
! Ihere was no question, however, that
! If sulphate of strychnia was actually
mingled with whiskey it's presence there
would be manifest in the form of
either solution or suspension. 1t would
therefore seem entirely immaterial in
what form she took the poison. 1t was
enough. 1t killed her.
We therefore reiterate that the evil
dence warranted the jury in finding
strychnine was the durg. Accordingly
the only question for consideration is,
was the jury warranted in finding be-
yond a reasonable doubt that the re-
spondent through the medium of the
whiskey contained in the bottle in.en-
tionally administered the fatal drug?
Upon this question the testimony
of the respondent can be regarded as
of very little value except as 1t IS
corroborated by circumstances, prob
abilities and other evidence, which
tend to give it probative force. When
any respondent takes the stand in
his own behalf, however guilty he
NAV be, he always denies the truth
of the offenso with which he is charg-
ed and asserts his innocence. Other
wise there would be no trial.
In view of the above proven facts.
the first important inquiry is: When
was the poison deposited in that bot
tie of whiskey? There can be no rea-
sonabte doubt that it WAS not put IN
by the seller, who took it all from
one large bottle. Hence it was not
i'm the bottle when it came into the
possession of the respondent This
conclusion seems to be made i'm
pregnable from the fact that the
whiskey was originally taken from
one large bottle. was all drunk by
several persons, including about a
pint and half by the RESPONDENT
and Mrs Bernicr, to within two
drinks left in the bottle, without de-
leterious effect or even suspicion Of
the presence of any drug of any kind
It therefore follows that the poison
was deposited after the contents Of
the last bottle We're reduced to two
drinks. If so, either Ward or Mrs.
Bernier inserted it. If the above con-
illusions are correct, he and Mrs
Rcrnier had the exclusive opportunity
He says, however, that he did not
sec Mrs Bernier do it, and her -
clamation when in commissions HE
has drugged me-" corroborates him.