•tv^>.........."i^'Ji.'flrewwTOiS'W'M i ',;'x« XX ;."..:;:^A"P?T.S $S&X' :;r Af;-:! X w XvXhX t ,4 ..*» ', - .38 John Pea 1, M.D. - •- ib. James Hepburn, M. D. 44, 89 Susan M'Callaster, - 46 Soiombn Mangus, - 49,94 E'izabetb Mangus, - • 50 Esther Grifiin, - - 51 Daniel Griffin, - 51, S3 Sabbath, adjournment^c-ver, - - 52 opinion of Court in relation to'"' adjourning ovc*-, - - - 53 Testimony ol'Giuistian Page, .' 54, 9li .John. Grreca, • - ■ 54,58 John Smith Dyakens, - 56 Peter Wendel, - -.58 C'iatle.s Lebo, . - - 59 Geprgo Lilly, ■- ■•'60,92 J-jo'li Yo.-itLeiiadr;' .- CO Testimony of Samuel Gamhart, - page 61 John Shuman, - 65,91 Eliza Grieb, - - 67 Hugh Dcnley, - 67,92 Mr. Parsons' opening speech for prisoner, 68 Testimony of JohnS. Carter, - - 71 William R. Wilson, - 73 Samuel Earls, - - ib. Daniel Doubt, 74,78,84,94 Declarations of prisoner, unaccompanied with acts, cannot be given in evidence, 74 General reputation of deceased for intem- perance; proof of, inadmissible, - IS Distinct facts in relation to her intemper- ance may be shown, ... jb. Testimony of Mary Swartz, - - 75 Diantha Marinus, - 76 Emily Welshanse, . 78 George Welshanse, - ib. Zachariah Welshanse, - 79 James M'Coy, - 79,94 Jacob HolI'man, - " - 79 Alexander Marinus, 80, 89 Wil iam Putt, , - - 83 John Hood, - '.< - ib. Sarah Mull, - » - 84 William Mull, - - 85 Sabina Moritz, - - 86 Henrietta Moritz, -. 88 Samuel B. Barker, "'- 90 Wm.R.Power,M.D.. - 92 Thomas M'Kee, - * - ib. Edith Barker, - - 93 Speech of James Armstrong, Esq^ for the commonwealth, - ... 94 Robert Fleming, Esq. for pris'r. 118 Wm. Cox Ellis, Esq. " " 127 A. V. Parsons, Esq. " " 139 Francis C. Campbell, Esq. for commonwealth, - - 155 Charge of the Court, - - 173 Verdict, ' - - 178 Motion in arrest of judgment, - - ib. for new trial, - - - ib. Motions overruled, - - - - ■■•N. ib. Seniunce, - 179 Application for special allocatur, - 189 Letter of A. V. Parsons to Chief Justice Gibson, assigning reasojis for writ of error, ....... ib. Letter from Judge Gibson, refusing writ of error,......' ISfi Confession, f- -„' .... lg'J 'Vf~M-:+ '**- #■ ■ .> «*y • -<3 TRIAi, OF JOHN EARLS. \At a Court of Oyer and Terminer, holden at Williamsport, in and for the County of Lycoming, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, November Term, A. D. 1835 : • B3fore the Hon. ELLIS LEWIS, President. Hon. John Crairings, ) . llox. Asher Davidson, \ AssQcl^«' The court was opened on Monday the 30th of November, 1835, and the following persons were called and sworn as Grand Jurors :— Qeorge Bennett, foreman. Thomas D. Stewart, William Bennett, Peter Swartz, William Chandler, John F. Sloan, Charles Eck, Henry Ulsh, James Elliot, Oliver Watson, George Edkin jr. John Weisel, George Fulmer, John D. Wilcox, •-, Joseph Hall, jr. William Wilson, (saddler.) John Heisley, Christian Brown. Matthew Jamison, The Hon. Ellis Lewis, President, thereupon gave in substance the fol- lowing instructions to the Grand Jury : Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: The Court have understood that a bill of In- •dictment will be laid before you, containing a charge of murder in the first degree. In such cases it is not unusual for the Presiding Magistrate to give some instructions in relation to the nature of the duties of the Grand Jury. As most of you are already familiar with these duties, the remarks of the Court, will be very brief. By the common law, murder is defined to be the unlawful killing of a. person, of malice aforethought. By our act of Assem- bly of the 22d April, 1794, all murder perpetrated by means of poison, is declared to be murder in the first degree, and is punishable with death. As the bill about to be laid before you charges the accused with having com- mitted murder by means of poison, the offencexharyed is that of murder in the first degree and nothing else. v -It is therefore unnecessary to trouble you with a defiuition of the various kinds of homicide punishable by law. «* It is not your duty to try the merits of each case,-but you arc merely to inquire whether there is sufficient ground to put the accused upon his trial. As a general rule, therefore, you are only to hear the witnesses for the com- monwealth. It is necessary that at least 12 of you should agree in finding a bill, and when that number, or more, agree to it, the foreman will endorse it " true bill," and sign such endorsement as foreman. Should any bill be rejected, it is to be endorsed " no bill" or "Ignoramus," and signed in like manner. In cases under the degree of felony, where a bill is returned " Ig- noramus," it is your duty to determine whether the county or the prosecution is to pay the costs; and in case you decide that the prosecutor must pay the costs, you are to name him in writing, signed as already mentioned. The oath which has just been administered requires you to " keep secret the commonwealth's counsel, your fellows' and your own." This includes the testimony of the witnesses who may be examined before you. This testi- mony is not to be disclosed unless for the purposes of public justice. Where a Grand Juror discovers that a witness is materially varying from the evi- dence which he gave before the Grand Inquest, it is proper for him to dis- close the fact, in order that justice may be done. Unless for the purposes of public justice the disclosure is not to be made. On the one hand it might expose the witnesses to the tamperings or menaces of the party accused, and the truth might, by those means, be perverted or suppressed. On the other hand such- disclosures necessarily tend to create excitements in the commu- nity, which interfere with that fair and impartial trial to which all are enti- tled under the laws of tire country. December 2d, 1835. The Grand Jury returned into Couit, the following Bill of Indictment, endorsed " A True Bill—GEORGE BENNETT, Foreman:' INDICTMENT. At a Court of Oyer and Terminer, and General Jail delivery, held at Williamsport,in and for the county of Lycoming, inthe Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, on the fifth Monday of November, being the thirtieth day thereof, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five. Lycoming County, ss: The Grand Inquest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, inquiring for 'he body of the County of Lycoming aforesaid, upon their oaths and sofemn r.ffirmations> respectively do present: that John Earls, late of Lycoiniii". county aforesaid, labourer, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigations of the devil, and of his malice ^forethought, wickedly contriving and intending a certain Catharine Earls v.if.h poison, wilfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, to kill and murder, on the fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, and on divers other days and times between the said fourteenth day of October in the year last aforesaid, and the sixteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, with force and arms at Lycoming county aforesaid, did knowingly, wilfully and feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, put, mix and mingle certain deadly poison, to wit, white arsenic, in certain chocolate, which had been, at divers days ani times, during the time a^X-scatl, prepared for the use of the said Cat!v.;i>:t: £ 3 Earls, to be drunk by her the said Catharine Earls, he the said John Earis then and there well knowing that the said chocolate, with which he the said John Earls did so mix and mingle the deadly poison as aforesaid, was then and there prepared for the use of the said Catharine Earls, with intent to be then and there administered to her for her drinking the same, and 'X. said Chocolate with which the said poison was so mixed as aforesaid, pX . wards, to wit, on the said fourteenth day ol October, in nuzyeav ,*rA Xjre said, and on the said other days and tunes at Lycoming couni\ ui'.resj! id, was delivered to the said Catharinfc Earls to be then ana their drunk by her ; and the said Catharine Earls not knowing the said poison to have been mix- ed with the said chocolate, did afterwards, to wit, on the said fourteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, and on the said divers other days and times, there drink apd swallow down into her body several quantities of the * aid poison so mixed as aforesaid, with the said chocolate; and the said Catharine Earls, of the poison aforesaid, and by the operation thereof, on the said fourteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, at Ly- coming county aforesaid, became sick and greatly distempered .in her bo- dy, of which said sickness and distemper of body, occasioned by the said drinking, taking and swallowing down into the body of the said Catharine Earls, of the poison aforesaid, so mixed and mingled in the said chocolate i aforesaid, she the said Catharine Earls, from the said several days .. >d times on which she had so drunk and swallowed down the same as aforesr.; until the said sixteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, at £yco ming county aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which saX sixteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, at Lycoming county aforesaid, she the said Catharine Earls of the poison afoiesaid, so taken, diunk, and swallowed down as aforesaid, and of the said sickness and dis- temper thereby occasioned did die. And so the Inquest aforesaid, upon their oaths and affirmations, respectively, as aforesaid, do say, that thesai: John Earls her the said Catharine Earls in the maimer and by the mean*- aforesaid, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder; contrary to the form of the act of General Assembly, of this Commonwealth, in such case made and provided, and against tot peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths and affirmations, respectiveiy as aforesaid, do further present, that the said John Eails on the said four- teenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five as aforesaid, and on divers other days and times between the said 14lh day of October, in the year last aforesaid, and the sixteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, at Lycoming county aforesaid, with force and arms did-knowingly, wilfully, feloniously, and of his malice afore- thought, place, mix, and mingle certain deadly poison, to wit, white arsenic, in certain tea which had been at divers days and times during the time afore- said, prepared for the use of the said Catharine Earls, to be drunk by her the said Cath'ne Earls, he the said John Earls then and there well knowing that the said tea with which the said poison was mixed as aforesaid, was then and there prepared for the use of the said Catharine Earls, with intent to be then and there administered to her for hex drinking the same, and the said tea with which the said poison was so mixed as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the said 14th day of October, in the year last aforesaid, and on the said other days and times at Lycoming county aforesaid, was delivered to the said Catharine Earls, to be then and there drunk by her; and the said Catharine Earls not knowing the said puisou to hare been mixed with the said tea, did afterward.*, to wit, bri the said fourteenth day of October^in the year last aforesaid, and on the said divers other days and times, there drink, and swallow down into her bo- dy, several quantities'of the said poison, so mixed as aforesaid, with the said tea, and the said Catharine Earls of the poison aforesaid, and by'the t operation thereof, on the said fourteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, at Lycoming county aforesaid, became sick, and greatly distem- pered in her body, of which said sickness and distemper of body occasioned by the drinking, taking, and swallowing down into the body of the said Cath- arine Earls of the poison aforesaid, so rrrixed and mingled in the said tea as aforesaid, she the said Catharine Earls from the said several days and times on which she had so drunk and swallowed down the same as aforesaid, until the sa*id sixteenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, at Lycoming county aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which said six- teenth day of October, in the year last aforesaid, at Lycoming county afore- said, she the said Catharine Earls, of the poison aforesaid, so taken, drunk ^ftfcij and swallowed down as aforesaid, and of the sickness and distemper thereby occasioned, did die. And so the inquest aforesaid, upon their oaths and af- firmations, respectively, as aforesaid, do say that the said John Earls, her the said Catharine Earls in the manner and by the means last aforesaid, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder; contrary to the form of the act of General Assembly, of this Com- monwealth in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dig- nity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. GEORGE M. DALLAS, Attorney General, Per HENRY D. ELLIS. Henry D. Ellis. Esq. Deputy Attorney General, and F. C. Campbell, Esq. appeared as Counsel for the Commonwealth—and Anson V. Parsons and Robert Fleming, Esquires, for the prisoner. JOHN EARLS, the prisoner, being brought into Court and personally;;/ arraigned, pleads " not guilty," to each count in the indictment and puts himself upon the country for trial. Attorney General similiter. On motion of Mr. Parsons, the Court grant an attachment against the following witnesses for non-attendance according to subpoena, to wit:—Hes- ter Griffin, Charles F. Sheffly, John George Sheffly, and Polly Swartz, wife of Jacob Swartz. ** Mr. Miller, a gentleman of the bar, residing in Lewisburg, where the Messrs. Sheftlys reside, arose and stated that these gentlemen had met with . 0 M a serious injury occasioned by a fire which had taken place in their Drug ' -T Store. The Court thereupon, directed the officer not to execute the attach- ,/ ment upon the Messrs. Shefflys, if upon examination he found them unable to be brought with safety to their health, and that if he had any doubts upori that subject, to take the opinion of Dr. Vanvalzah, of that place. December 3d, 1835. .... W* The officer returned without executing the attachment upon Messrs. Shef- ' •% flys, and presented the certificate of Dr. Vanvalzah, that he had examined one of the gentlemen named, who was too much injured by the fire to be able to travel with, safety. The officer was also sworn to the same fact. The prisoner's counsel, Messrs. Parsons and Fleming, moved for a continuance of the cause, on the ground of the absence of these and other witnesses, al- leged to be material. Mr. Campbell, and Mr. H. D. Ellis, for the common- »*:* *M ■"? *3 wealth, resisted the application, and offered to receive the depositions of the absent witnesses. The Prisoner's Counsel produced an affidavit of the pri- soner, that the witnesses were material—and that their personal attendance was also necessary, in order to identify him. The Court thereupon ordered the cause to be continued, and the witnesses were severally recognised to ap- pear at the next Oyer and Terminer. FEBRUARY TERM, 183G. » Tuesday, February 2. The Court of Oyer and Tprr.iinor, was ajrain opened—all the Judges present—and the prisoner, JOHN EARLS, placed at the bar for trial. Counsel for Commonwealth—James Armstrong, Esq. (recently ap- pointed Deputy Attorney General,) and F. C. Campbell, Esq. Conn-id for Prisoner—Anson V. Parsons, Robert Fleming, and AVji. Cox Ellis,Esquires. The pannel of traverse jurors summoned for the present term was then called over, and severally answered to their names, with a single exception ; whereupon tlie President Judge addressed the prisoner and informed him " that these good men whom you shall now hear called, are those which are *.o pass between the Commonwealth and you, upon your life and death. You are entitled to twenty peremptory challenges, without assigning any cause, and as many more as you can show cause for. If therefore, you Will chal- lenge them, or any of them, you must challenge them as they, severally come to be sworn or affirmed, and before they are sworn or affirmed." The Clerk then proceeded to call the jurors, as they were respectively drawn from the box, as follows :— 1. Robert Cutter, sworn. Robert Taylor, jr. challenged peremptorily. James Hunter—When called, Mr. H. staled he had formed and expressed an opinion in relation to the guilt of the prisoner, and was therefore challen- ged by the prisoner,for rause. Challenge sustained by the Court. 2. Moses Mahaffey, sworn. James Long, challenged peremptorily. 3. Jacob Beeher-—'Ihe prisoner having waived his right of challenge, the counsel for the.Commonwealth proposed to ask Mr. B. whether he had " Conscientious scruples against finding a verdict of guilty in a capital case, the punishment being death, if the evidence warranted it ? Mr. Ellis, for prisoner, objected, and gave his reasons at length. The Court, without hearing the Commonwealth's counsel, allowed the question to be asked—to which the juior answered " not any," and was sworn. 4. Charles Thomas, sworn. Cutler Solomon, challenged peremptorily. Aaron Blair, challenged per- emptorily. Isaac Bodine, challenged peremptorily. William Wilson, (saddler) stated he had been on the Grand Jury at last Oyer and Terminer, that found the bill of indictment, and was challenged by pri softer/or cause. Challenge sustained. 5. 'Samuel Craft, sworn. Jacob L. Mussina, challenged peremptorily. 6. Samuel Mop.x-ison, sworn. 6 John Little—Having formed and expressed an opinion, was challenged for cause by prisoner. Challenge sustained. Samuel Paulhamus, challenged peremptorily. Charles Knox, challenged peiemptorily- William Starr—When called stated he served as one of the Coroner's in- quest over the dead body of Catharine Earli, the wife of the prisoner, whicli inquest had, in their finding, charged the prisoner with the crime. Challen- ged for cause by prisoner. Challenge sustained. 7. James Cowiiick, sworn. John G. Ephlin—ila\\ng formed and expressed an opinion, was challen- ged for cause by prisoner. Challenge sustained. Joseph Welsh, challenged peremptorily. Richard Singer—Having formed and expressed an opinion was challenged for cause by prisoner. Challenge sustained. John Gibson, challenged peremptorily. Edward Lyon—Havingybrwted and expressed an opinion, was challenged for cause by prisoner. Challenge sustained. John M'Cabe, challenged peremptorily. 8. John Sheadle, sworn. William Thompson—stated he gave information to Justice under oath, upon which the warrant issued for the apprehension of Earls, and was challenged for cause, by prisoner. Challenge sustained. 9. John Pursel, sworn. John Shoemaker—Having formed and expressed an opinion, was chal- lenged for cause by prisoner. Challenge sustained. John Wier, challenged peremptorily. 10. Samuel Thompson, sworn. Robert Colburn, challenged peremptorily. James Thomas, challenged peremptorily. Chatham Devling, challenged peremptorily. George Fulmer, Jonathan Barker, and J. W. Heylmun—Each-having formed and expressed an opinion, were challanged for cause by prisoner. Challenges sustained. Matthew Marshall—challenged peremptorily. 11. William Quigley, sworn. William Johnston, jr. challenged peremptorily. George Derr—Having formed and expressed an opinion was challenged for cause by prisoner. Challenge sustained. Richard Hays, challenged peremptorily. John Huckel, challenged peremptorily. Ferdinand F. Schale—It appeared that this juror was a German, and did not sufficiently understand the English language to comprehend the evidence and arguments of counsel, and was challenged for this cause by the prisoner. Challenge sustained. 12. Henry Harman, sworn. The Jury therefore, as sworn by the President Judge, consisted of Robert Cutter, James Co\vhick, Moses Mahaffey, John Sheadle, Jacob Beeber, John Pursel, Charles Thomas, Samuel Thompson, Samuel Craft, William Quigley, Samuel Aiorri" v.i, , Henry Ha: :iau. 7 Before the opening of the cause by the counsel lor the Commonwealth, Mr. Ellis, for prisoner, requested the Court in view of the excitement pre- vailing in the public mind to oider the Jury to be kept together during the trial, that there might be no intercourse between, them and the rest of the community. The Court promptly granted the request, taking occasion to remark onthe necessity on the part of the Jury, to keep their minds free from any influence, except that produced by the evidence. John Ulmer and Samuel Longan, two of the constables in attendance upon the Court, were thereupon appointed to attend the jury, and severally sworn " well and truly to keep the jury, and neither to speak to them them- selves, nor suffer any other person to speak to them touching any matter relative to this triaV Lodgings and entertainment were ordered by the Court to be provided for them at the public house of Mr. Joseph Hall. '."he cause was opened on behalf of the Commonwealth by Mr. Arm- strong, (Deputy Attorney General,) who preceded the reading of the Indict- ment with a clear and eloquent introduction. He dwelt, principally, on the importance of the case before the Jury, the magnitude of the offence charged against the prisoner, and the necessity of deciding upon the evidence without reference to feelings of pity. After reading the indictment, Mr. A. gave' a full statement, and went at length into the nature of the proof which he said the commonwealth would rely on, to sustain the indictment—the following is a brief outline. He said that for a considerable time past, the defendant, John Earls, and his wife Catharine Earls, the deceased, lived unhappily together. That on the day of the last general election,'the prisonei went to the apothecary store of Messrs. Bruner and Dawson, in the borough of Muncy, at a time when he found the store crowded with people, and purchased a quantity of white ar- senic. That on the next day, which was Wednesday, the 14th of October last, Mrs. Earls was confined in childbed, and gave birth to an infant. She was, h ♦ vever, more than usually well, and better than she had previously been on similar occasions. On Thursday she was well, and ate her dinner with a good appetite; on the evening of that day, she said she felt weH, and whilst eating her supper, conversed cheerfully with Livy Sechler. That supper contained the elements o( death ! In less than an hour Mrs. Earls was'attacked with vomiting and became very sick. Earls prepared mint tea for her—she complained that it tasted bitter ; more was made for her, and that was bitter too. She said it bit her in the throat. She told them to get her some laudanum, and she took 50 drops, but it did her no good—the vomiting continued. She v. as anxious for relief but no relief could be afford- ed—called for drink, but could not drink when it was offered. She could not tell what was the cause of her distress—complained of pain all over, and particularly in the stomach—rolled on the bed, vomited till she could vomit no more—her strength and her faculties became prostrate ; and about half after 3 o'clock on Friday morning she died. Such was her short and painful transition from Hie to death. Mr. A. said he would further show, that on Thursday, about nooo, just as the table was sot for dinner, John Earls left home without eat- ing, and said he was going up to the dam with his two little boys. His moth- er expressed her surprise* as she had made chocolate for dinner. John, however, went away, and did not return till night, and as soon as he came home, he asked his mother if supper was 'most ready. "Yes" said she, "but I'll take Kat\"s supper fin first, and then we will eat.". uO," says John, '•Katv do:f t Want to eat jet till after a little—(i!! after we c:u." The old H woman then poured out a pint bowl full of chocolate for Katy, and set it on the stove. The family then sat down to supper in the rocm, and when the. old woman was done, she went to the kitchen and placed the big waiter on the kitchen table; after which she got the articles from different parts of the - house, intended for Mrs. Earls'supper, consisting of a pint bowl of chocolate, some bread and butter, peach sa,uce and elder jelly. John held the light ' while the old woman carried the waiter up stairs and set it at the bed side. Mrs. Earls drank all the chocolate—John was anxious to keep the children . down stairs while his wife was eating—he was observed to kick over a cup on the hearth, which contained some of the tea he had assisted in preparing for her—he did not offer to go for a doctor, or any other person, until one of' his little girls urged him to do so, a short time before her death. He then went to Mrs. Callahan's, half a mile off, but did not make his business knowrj for some time after he went there, nor till after he got his bottle filled witji *• whiskey. He then stated that his wife had taken cold, and talked of going* to Milton, ten miles off, for a doctor, when there were others much nearer, . On his return he found his wife dead, and he stamped on the floor and began to swear. $•*' Mr. A. said he would also prove, that Earls was in the habit of treating his wife in the most cruel and brutal manner. That he, on one occasion, dragged her through the house, by the hair of the head—at another whip- ped her severely with the plough lines—and twice threw her into the cellar £, —and once held her under a fountain pump in the winter season, at the same lime tearing her dress nearly off, and that he threatened several times to lay her asleep. Mr. A. said he would also show, as a motive for the com-. mission of the crime charged, that Earjs had conceived an unhappy affection for a girl of the name of Maria Moritz, and had kept up an illicit intercourse with her, in consequence of which all affection for his wife had become en- tirely estranged. That he was in the practice of meeting Maria at places of assignation—that he frequently used the most tantalizing language to his wife, saying to her if she could kiss as sweet as Maria Moritz he would like her a gieat deal better—and repeating in her presence, and before his children, that h* loved Maria. That he swore he would get rid of his wife some way or other, and if he could do no better, he would make a vendue, and sell off every thing and go to the west. That he did make a vendue, and sold nearly all his things, even his wife's last feather bed. That when he was first arrested, he said he expected nothing else—; that he had bought ratshane, and he did not deny it—that he allowed they would hang him, and he did not care a damn, and, he would as lief go to hell a-, not. That he used finesse and management to elude the vigilance of the officers who had him in charge and tried to escape by running, and once laid down, swearing he would go no further, and wanted whiskey at every tavern- Mr. A. said they would further prove by the evidence of medical gentle- men that the symptoms attending Mrs. Earls' case, were such as characterize a death by ppison ; and that the intense inflammation exhibited by the post mortem examination, were such as to confirm them in the belief that Mrs. Earls'death was produced by arsenic. He said they would also show, that the stomach which contained about a pint of bloody mucus, was taken to Muncy, and a portion of it there analyzed by Drs. Dougal, Ludwig, Peal, and Kittoe, who were fully satisfied of ths existence of arsenic in the fluid. A small portion was also taken to Milton by Dr. Dougal, who, with Mr. MokhijON, a chemibt, oxperi nen'.ed upon it v, ith rq«u:! satisfaction, II producing the metallic ring. That the remainder of the contents of tl.t stomach was ta -en to Philadelphia by Dr. Kittoe, and submitted to Dr. Mitchell. It was then found that a large quantity of sediment, resem- bling white powder, and believed to be arsenic, had subsided in the bottle in which it had been placed. To this, Dr. Mitchell applied the most ap- proved tests known to chemical science; and the result was the'absolute detection of the pure metallic arsenic'. This, gentlemen, said Mr. A., is the nature of the case to be submitted to you by the Commonwealth, and which, for atrocity of character, and deep y.nd devilish malignity, has rarely been surpassed. If we are suc'cess- lul in proving this state of facts, I will not allow myself for a moment to be- lieve, that the Jury will hesitate fearlessly to'discharge their duty, by find- ing a verdict of guilty. .. After Mr. A. concluded, and before a witness was called to be sworn, Mr. Pardons, for the prisoner, asked of the Court to exclude all the wit- nesses (except professional gentlemen) from the Court house, during the pro- gress of the trial, that they might be examined separately, and not in the hearing (f each other. He cited in support of his motion, 3 Starkie, 1733, 1 Chitty Crim. Law, 504. Mrs. Chapman's trial before Judge Fox, 67 and ^08—and referred also to the legrefjs of this Court, at having refused a simi- lar order in a former case. Mr. P. concluded by asking the order, not only as matter of indulgence, but of right. Mr. Armstrong opposed the motion, as not being called for under the circumstances. He could see no reason why the whole of the witnesses (fifty or sixty persons) should be uncourteously ordered out of the Court house. He thought it would be productive of inconvenience to the Court, and al- together unnecessary. Mr. Fleming, for the prisoner, also cited 1 Starkie, 133. The Court refused to grant the order, on the ground that it was incon venient and unnecessary; and it was besides widely different from the case referred to by Mr. Parsons. In that case, developments were made on the trial, that satisfied the Court there was a conspiracy against the life of the prisoner, on the part of some of the witnesses. The Court added that if any good cause existed for#the exclusion of any of the witnesses, affidavit might be made to that effect, and an order would be granted, so far as con- cerned the witnesses referred to. The order is always at the hazard of losing the testimony of witnesses who infringe it, and ought not to be made without cause. Court adjourned till half past 2 o'clock. Afternoon Session. The counsel for the prisoner renew the motion of Mr. Parsons, in re- lation to excluding the witnesses from the Court house, and offer affidavits specifying such witnesses as they desire to exclude/together with the reasons. Mr. Campbell, for the Commonwealth, objected to the order being grant- ed by the Court. He stated that the only .case in which such order could be made, was that of a conspiracy; nothing like conspiracy being developed in the affidavits, he could see no propriety in excluding the persons alluded to. Ho went at some length into an examination of the nature of the affidavits, to show there was nothing in them to call for this exclusion Mr. Armstroxg followed on tho same-aide, showing the violation of per- ? inal rights and liberty; that would be committed against the witnesses by iheir exclusion. He also stated in conclusion, that according to the lule laid down in 3 Starkie, 1733, " 11" any witness in/ringe the order bv remaining io :n Couit, he cannot afterwards be examined, although he. be the Attorney ii* the cause." This by a combination, or even inad.vertance of witnesses, might be very detrimental to the interests of either party. Mr. Ellis, for the prisoner, contended for the exclusion of the .witnesses,. on the ground that'the genius of our free institutions- guaranteed it to the prisoner: English law, said Mr. Ellis, gives to the Crown the right of ex- clusion; and what in England is accorded to the Crown, is here as matter of equal justice allowed also to the prisoner. Mr. E. continued his remarks to show how easily a chain of circumstances may be formed, by witnesses listening to, and immediately following each other, and that, too, without any impure motives on the part of the witnesses. ?.-,, continued—-Before the death of the wife a couple of weeks, Earls caught up with mo as I was going up to town. He said he was going ' up to Mr. Cook'.? about a bad note Mr.). Earls had given to Cook. She got it from the watermen. She is so contrary, says he, she will do nothing for my bidding, only as she chooses. Then says I, you can't expect counten- ance from your wife, while you keep going backwards and forwards to that other house. I'll have *m end to it after«a while, says he ; then I told him he had better leave the country, than be running night and day to that house —Earls knew the hou*e I meant. There was no other house he had the name of going to but that. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I wis much alaumed when I came where the corpse was, and I did not see what Earls did. I thought the children were not much grieved. The old woman was not much uneasy.— They drew the whiskey as soon as it is usually drawn, and Earls took the bottle home with him. The child was a few inmates born before I got there. There was no doctor there. Dr. Ludwi*; practices in our nei^hbor- hood, he attends the sick there. Earls did not .sit down when he came for the whiskey. He wanted me .to go with him. Mrs. Earls' things were clean and nice when she was.confined. Earls seemed rejoiced. He went Up from dinner and talked to Mrs. E., and I was glad to see it, for 1 thought it was but seldom. On the next day Mrs. E. said,'"John stayed in with me last night, and kept fire in the room, and seemingly was good to me. He always used me well on such times, and would on other times, only for ugly Maria Moritz." This was on Thursday evening, and on Friday morning she died. Mrs. Earls sat up on the bed, and suckled her baby. Re-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—I asked her why in the name of the Lord, she let John sell the bX. The Lord knows, says she. I know no more than yon. Then says she, I would agree to any thing— ; I couldibear with any thing John does, if he would but quit drawing after Maria Moritz. He might sell every thing. It was a feather bed he sold. She was lying on a chaff bed. Adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. Wednesday Mornyno, February 3. Olivia Sechler, Sworn—The evening before Mrs. Earls died, I went in to see her. When I went upstairs, Mr. Earls was in the same room with her—when I walked up to the bed to her, and asked her how she was, she said she felt quite well. She \vas just eating her supper. He appeared to be very kind to her, and talked to her all tho time she was eating. After Mrs. Earls was done eating her supper,' Mr. E. carried the waiter down istairs, from her bed side, and remained down stairs, and did not come -up.da* 14 img the time I was there. • There was bread and butter, and I heard the ok' woman say there was chocolate on the waiter for Mrs. Earls' supper. I wa? in the house but a few minutes after Mrs. E. was done eating. It was after dark when I came; I think it must have been seven or eight o'clock when I went away. I suppose I was there an hour, may be better. I rather think she drank all the chocolate, but am not certain. One of the little girls went upstairs with me and she Was there a short time, and 1 think.her mother told her to go down and put the child next to the youngest asleep. The children were all down stairs. There were none of them up when 1 went there. The old woman came up just as Mrs. Earls finished her supper. There was no other person in the room but Mrs. E. when I went up. Some of the smaller children wanted to come up stairs, but he ordered them back. She drank the chocolate out of a bowl that would hold about a* pint. He was sitting a little piece off the foot of Mrs. Earls' bed, and the waiter was on a chair at the side of the bed. Him, her, and I, talked all throughi oth- er while she was eating. She had a good appetite. I heard nothing said by Earls about eating hearty. I never heard Mr. Earls threaten Mrs. E., but have seen him abuse her. On last new year's a year, I saw him hauling her to the cellar, and she was there some time; tl;en one of the little girls came over to our house, and wanted me to go over; 1 went over, and went into The cellar; she was sitting the-re crying very severely. Her clothes ap- peared to be very much torn. I did not observe any marks of violence. I was there but about half a minute. At another tirjie since that, not more thin a month before her confinement, I saw him drag her into the cellar, find look her up. He had her about the shoulders and dragged her head foremost down the steps with her feet trailing. I have often heard him scold her. I thought he was sober, the last lime he hauled her into the •cellar. . I was not sure. On new year's I thought he was a little "worse of liquor. She tried to pulkfrom him when he was dragging her, but he swore she must go. I heard'him tell her once if she did not quit talking about the subject of going from home st much,she would have to take the tow-path. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I rather think it was the old- est girl that went up stairs with me. She went from our house with me. >She continued in the room with me but a short tims. . The supper was up when I went there. Old Mrs. E. was down stairs when I went there. Candles were lighted when I went in. I did not pass where the family were bating. I saw one of the children at the table down stairs, the ro^m doo£ being open. It had the appearance as if the family had been eating their supper. Just after Mrs. E. finished her supper, the old lady came in. Eli- za was ojie of the children I heard Earls order down stairs. I heard his ^oice. 1 think she is the fourth child. Either Sam or John was with her. The infant was in the bed with Mrs: Earls. The old woman took the, infant while I was there. I think Mr. Griffin.had come up before Earls had haul- ed his wife to the cellar on new yeai's day. He followed Earls out. Boris and Griffin were not quarrelling that I know of. She was in the cellar top minutes, if not longer, before I went over. She always tried "to take her own part as well as she could, but she come but poor speed at it sometimes. Earls took the waiter down stairs after ■old Mrs. E. came up. He went down directly after the oil lady came up. .rf here was a candle in the room. He went up stairs directly after I went in ; he was up when I got up stairs. He was in the kitchen when I wcht in. I did not stay down stairs more than a minute before I went up. I saw John go up stairs directly after I went in. The old lady was about the fire. I ddn'.t know what she was doinnr. 13 Mother was by when I saw E?uls drag his wife into the cellar, about a month before' she was confined. I don't remember of any female living a| Karls' en new year's when he dragged her. Mrs. Marinus lived near, but whether she was there or not, I cannot say. She was often from home.— I think I was not at Earls' before on new year's day. Mrs. E. was eating her supper when 1 went into her room. Mrs. E#. was leaning on her elbow in bed. There was one bed in the room beside that Mrs, E. was sitting on. There was rlo bureau in the room. There was a chest standing by the oth- er bed, not the one she lay in. It was more.than a yard from the hearth to the bed. The foot of the bed was closest to the fire. One corner of the bed was nearest. 1 was in the room after Mrs. E. died. There was no stran- gei there, but mother. Mr. Earls and Mrs. Callahan had not come yet.— I went to Mr. Mangus' for the women. 1 went into the house with the wo- men. (Mrs. Mangus, Mrs. Mowrey and Mrs, Page.) I found mother and Mrs. Callahan and the children up stairs in the room. John, was down and did'nt come up. I saw him walking from, one room to another down stairs. They were doing nothing with the corpse when I went in with the women. They commenced preparing the corpse shortly after: There was no man in the room, when the women arrived. Re-examined by Counsel for-Commonwealth—Mr. Earls requested me to go to the store for the corpse's dress. This was after daylight. Catharine'Mangus, sworn—[This witness not. understanding the English language, Mr. Daniel Grafius, and the Prothonotary, Mr. Frederick, were appointed interpreters and sworn.] In the morning that Mrs. Earls died, at four o'clock, I was taken up to Earls'. Mrs. Mpwrey said she would go along with me. Livy Sechler came for me, and when we got up to the bridge, Livy went over for Mrs. Page. We then all went'up to. Carls'. I went foremost, and when I came there, there was a light. I < looked in and saw a'man—it* was Earls—he was crying. We went into the kitchen and all went up. stairs. I went foremost. When we came in, Mrs. E. was dead, and Mrs.'Sechler, Mrs. Callahan, and old granny Earls were in the room. John Hood and old Mrs. Sechler carried her dowa when she v as laid out. I got breakfast for them and went home, .Earls abused his wife once. I was sitting in the bar room, Mrs. Marinus was in the qouse, and her child began to cry at her.own house, and I locked out of the window, and saw the noise was at the water trough, at the pump. I went over into the next room quick where Mrs. Marinus and my daughter were; a woman came running in I took for Mrs. E. There was no candle in the room. After that John Earls fell into the house at another door.— He stood near to me when I heard the- cry :-some one hallooed out "he put her in the pump trough"— when I heard that I went out to hunt M.%. E. and she was hi the bar room. Her head was all over wet, and one side was all wet. One sleeve of her dress was nearly torn off. I gave her one of my oowns to put on—Earls came to the fire and asked Mrs. E. what is it? (vasisht ?) She told him he need not ask for he knew. Then E. went off. There was snow on the ground, it was very cold. Don't know whether be- fore or after Christmas. There was ice round the trough but none in it. The'trough is a little longer than that stick, [pointing to the Constable'* Staff] About so wide, [measuring on the counsel table about tivo Ject\ and about so deep, (from 15 to 18 inches.] I was at Earls' house but did uoi «ro with the funeral. The children and E. were all there at the corpse. The people that were bv took the children up to the corpse—not E. He ....., .v;»h the eh.'Jren looking at the corpse at the same time. After the 16 coffin was brought, when.they were putting her in, E.'and the children went up stairs After she was in, William Pott came and asked if she was put in the coffin, E. wanted to see her once more. " Then'E. and the children came down stairs together and went to the coffin and all looked at the corpse.—■ They all cried very much, E. and the children. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I saw nobody in the room when I first came, but Earls. I did not go in where he was, but went up stairs ; he did not come up. He had his handkerchief up to his face, wall'ing back- wards and forwards, and appeared to be in a good deal of distress. After the crowd separated at the pump, Mrs. Marinus and my daughter came in. I think Mr. Marinus was there, he was in the house and run out. Earls offer- ed no violence to his wife in the house. There were not very many people at the funeral. The funeral left the house about 12 o'clock, M. The peo-. pie assembled at different hours. She died on Friday and was buried on Saturday. The neighbours were not generally at the funeral. The nearest neighbours were. She was put in the coffin on Saturday a short lime before the corpse was taken away. She was buried on the opposite side of the river, at the Baptist meeting house, near Mackey?s. Earls' house is a half mile from our house. Earls had crape on, and the largest of the children,* at the funeral. Elizabeth Mowrey, sworn—I was at Mangus' when Mrs. Earls died, and Livy Sechler came there about 4 o'clock, and said Mrs. E. was dead, and wapted us to come up. When we came to Earls' door we heard some noise —when we came in, Earls was in the room with his handkerchief before his eyes, crying. Then we went up stairs, and Mrs. Sechler, Mrs. Callahan and old Mrs. Earls were in the room. I went up to the bed and Mrs. E. was warm yet. I said she ought to be washed and dressed while she was warm. Mrs. Mangus held the candle and Mrs. Page helped me. . When I opened her bosom she had a mark right between her breasts; it was as big as the , palm of my hand, and red and bluish like. Her breasts were full of mill;. " In the morning she was all blue spotted round her neck, on her leg, her nails, her lips, and below her eye3. We went up as soon as Mrs. Mangus was dressed. . I was at Earls' from Friday morning until Monday evening. I was away a part of Sunday. The blue spot on the breast was not below the breast bone, but right on the middle. I live a mile and a half from Earls'. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—There was nobody in the room with E. when we got there. The corpse was dressed well. Earls and theJjL* children went across the riyer to the funeral. The youngest children stay- ed. They went to the'funeral by fiats or boats. The spot on the leg was "*• on the right side, about the middle from the knee down, on the outside. The corpse was carried down stairs as soon as it was washed and dressed. I looked at the corpse in the morning as soon as it was light enough to see*- We took a rag off just below the breasts, that smelled very strong of vinegar —that was below the spot that was blue. The nails looked blue. Mrs. Mail- '■ gus held the candle almost all the time we were dressing the corpse. The || # * women made the shroud next day—Sirs. Stiat^bn, EuWfetratton, Livy Soch- H ler and'Mrs. Thomas. It is two milks from', where,Mrs. Stratum lives to John EarIX Mrs. Thomas lives a mile and at half from John Earls'. Sophia Page, sworn—[Witness not understanding English, Air. Daniel Graf us interpreted.] When Mrs. Earls died, Livy Sechler came and (-tri- ed me up. I went up with the other women, and when I came up, John F ,-•'•■ .was in a room down stairs, walking backward and forward and crying. We w home, and when i came back I saw blue streaks on her neck, on her finger ,<$ ■ nails, as id there was a rag on her face, Mr. E. could not eat his breakfast .^ for crying. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I live about halfa mile from Earls'. I was at the funeral—I was over the river and several others. Earls was there and some of the children, but 1 don't know how many. Old Mrs. E. was'at the funeral—I think E. and the children went to look at the corpse vf. before the coffin was shut. William Pott was there. Can't tell whether E. £^» cried on that day. Mrs. Mangus held the candle while we washed thecorpse. • Mrs. Callahan may have been there part of the time; but was not there $v.hen they carried the corpse down stair?—did not see her if she was. Adjourned till half past 2 o'clock, P. M. Afternoon Session. Mary Ann-Earls, sworn—[The daughter of the Prisoner at the bar.]— I am fifteen years of age. I was down at Mr. Oyster's and my sister came down there for butter, and I came along up. It was pn Thursday evening I * went home and they were about getting supper. It wasabout 8 o'clock when I went home—I went over to Sechler's first, and then Icame home and went up stairs. When I went up stairs mamma took the baby up and showed it to me. When she showed me the baby I went down stairs, and granny be- gan toJfret the supper, Papa came up from the river, and granny was ma- king t!f|e chocolate. Then they sat down and eat, and granny was getting mamma's supper ready. They all set down and papa among the rest, to eat. When papa was done eating, granny said ,he should light her up.- Then, .granny took- up the'waiter in her hands and papa went after her and lighted her up. Then, Livy Sechler was in when mamma was eating hpr supper; and pap stayed up stairs and layed on one bed and mamma on the other. Then the ehiklren wanted to come .p stairs, and pap would not leave them come up. Then after she had done eating, papa took up the waiter and carried it down stairs. Livy $echler went home. Then about nine o'clock, mamma she began to vomit so. Then granny ran up and asked her whether .it was that potato that made her vomit so, or the chocolate. Mamma said * she did not know what made it. Then papa asked mamma what would stop jjromiting, and she said mint tea. Pap said he would get mint tea, and I got a'candle and lit him. I got a'tea cup out of the dresser and he poured wa- fer over it and !et,it boil. Then pap got the saucer and poured 1k>me out. Then I was standing by the trundle bed when he poured it out and he gave it to her. Then mamma said that tasted bitter. Then granny said that is pepper mint, I have some spear mint. Then granny went and got her spear ■■mint and put it upon the coals and let it boil-- Then mamma said that tasted just in the same way. <" Granny gave her the spear mint. Then she would still vomit on till she could vomit no more. * Then we asked her, papa ask- ed her, if any thing el$e-v and' she said laudanum. Papa got the laudanum ; mpther said "it was down stairs in the drawer. Papa asked how much, and s^he said fifty drops. Then she; would still gag. I asked her if we should go for any body; she said no, wait awhile, may be T shall get better. I asked her twice, she said I should not. Then I went clown stairs and told pap-he Miould go for ?omcbodv, Then he went over for Mrs. Sechler. I asked; C IS |>er rf a muttard plaster put upon her side would do any good, eha said »«j vould. Then We got the mustard plaster ready, and when Mrs. Sechler came over, me and my sister did not want to put it on, and Airs. Sechler put it on. We waited a little while and Mrs. Sechler said mamma was dying. She went up to the fire and told granny she was dying. Then she went up to the bed again, and came back and tojd granny she was dying. Then she went to the bed again, and came back and told granny she was dead! Then Mrs. Sechler went over and told her daughter to come over. Then Livy Sechler came over and her and my brother Samuel went down to Mangus'.; Then they came up, and they washed her and carried her down stairs. That's ail. My mother a?ked for diink—she only asked it a couple of times. Young hyson tea was given her. Grandmother got the young hy- son tea ready for her—it was given her before the mint tea I believe. I saw the chocolate that was poured out for mother. -Granny she poured it out in a bowl and set it on the stove. It stood on the stove till papa was, done eating. Papa was not done eating before the rest of us. It was after candle light; we eat our supper down stairs. Granny said she would pour it out and set it on the stove to keep warm. After I had done eating, gran- ny had it ready on the waiter to take up stairs. Father set at the table till I had done eating. Papa got up from the table, and granny set the bowl on the waiter, and said John now you light me up- She took no tea pf any kind before she vomited. Father is not generally done eating before us. The mint tea was made in a tin cup. The chocolate was taken up in a bowl, The bowl was got out of the dresser. Mother had some chocolate, potato, preserves, bread and some butter. There was fire in the stove on which the bowl of chocolate was set, I am sure of it. There was fire on the hearth also. When papa lighted granny up he stayed up. He stayed up till mother was done eating her supper. I was in the room all the while, Granny went down. Bliss Sechler did not come there while mother was eating her supper. Miss Sechler did not come there while my father was in the room. Mother eat her supper with a good appetite. She drank all the chocolate. While mother was eating, pap was on one bed while she was ou the pther. One bed is in one corner, and the other in the other, They were in opposite corners. I remained in the room until my mothev had done eating supper. The waiter was setting on a chair while my mo. ther was eating, One new year's night papa went out to shoot the old year off. In the morning he come home, and Dan Griffin was along with him, Then when he came home mamma she began to scold him. She askeA* him where he was ; he said he was out shooting new years. * She said he was out at Moritz's. He said he was not. Jle said if she would hot shut up he would give her a thrashing. She told him to thrash her. She would still bo scolding on and then he took hold of her and took her down cellar. He took her under his arm and took her down. I believe he hurt her on the arm. 1 have not seen any other bad treatment. I did not live at home for a good while and I did not see him strike her. Nobody was there when she was put in the cellar, but my sister and myself. Dtan Griffin went down home before she was put in the cellar. She was kept in a couple of hours. I was a{ . home a good doah [The counsel for the Commonwealth here proposed to ask the witneX; *'what she knew of an attach,uent existing between her father and any other woman beside her mother V Mr. Parsons, for the prisoner, objected, and fiKiUired of the opposing eeuisel u:{iqt fart they dtXred to prove '.' Mr. Id Armstrong replied, they would show that the prisoner's affections had oeeft entirely estranged from his wife, and centred upon another woman, named Maria Moritz—that he and his paramour had been guilty ofthe grossest acts of lewdness, and that the partner of his bosom had lost her power to charm. We will show, said Mr. A. that he has frequently been seen with his mistress in a shantee, in a stable, in his own bed room in the absence of his wife, and other acts of incontinence which go to prove a motive, or inducement for the commission ofthe crime with which he stands charged. It is for the pur- pose of showing a motive we offer the testimony ; and in that light we think it is clearly admissible. He cited 1 Starkie, 492* Mr. Parsons opposed the motion upon the ground that the facts proposed to be proved go to convict the prisoner of another and a different crime, from the one with which he stands charged in the indictment; and of which he has had no notice. They make out the charge of adultery—and for tha'Sj crime the prisoner has not been put upon hu trial. He does not come info court prepared to meet and repel the allegation; because he could not possi- bly foretel that ha would be called upon to answer such a charge upon an indictment for murder. It is not competent to prove one crime as amoiive for the commission of another. Mr. P. continued his remarks at some length, and cited in support ofthe objection, the decision of Judge Mallarit in the trial of Getter, p. 14. '. Mr. Fleming also opposed the admission of the testimony, and in addi- tion to the arguments of his colleague, in relation to the manifest injustice which would be done to the prisoner by suffering testimony to be, introduced 'tending to convict him of a crime for which he was not indicted, dwelt with! much emphasis u'pcn the effect which such decision must also inevitably have upon the character, the reputation, and all that is dear in life, of another individual who is not a party in this cause, and who has no one to represent her on this floor. If John Earls has been guilty of adultery, by having illicit, intercourse with Maria Moritz, she, in consequence, must necessarily be guil- ty of fornication. Will this courts then, said Mr. F. suffer third persons to be cpavicted of crime without a hearing and without a trial? Is Maria Moritz to be stigmatized and degraded, without an opportunity of defending? Surely the law does not require, public justice does not' demand, such an unrighteous procedure. Mr. Ellis remarked, that even if the testimony were admissible, it could riot be received at this stage of the cause. A homicide has not been proye.4 -*»there is no'evidence that a murder has been committed, and this, Court will not inquire into the motive for the commission ofthe act until the cor- pus delicti is proved. Mr. Parsons, In support of this position, cited 1 Sjtarkie, 500—"so long as the least doubt exists as to the act, there can be, no certainty as to the criminal agent." . Judge Lewis—-[To Prisoner's Counsel:]—Do you insist upon the ob- jection that the .evidence is offered out oT its propertied? Mr. Parsons—Most certainly we do. JTudge Lewis—The evidence'\s\ of such a character that we cannot con- sent to receive i$. until some pfoof has-been given of the.alleged homieide. XMr. AR>mRo\i; said':, the Counsel for the prisoner, after having argued, the main question at length, have changed their ground—as the objection rtow is to the point of time at which the evidence •.*■ offered, we concur with the court X the opinion just expressed.] : 2<* • r Mary Awl Earls, continued—Papa lived poace'afcly enough with mothc* for four or five months before she took sick. .1 lived at hotne for tho last four or five months before my mother's death. I was at home during all that time. I was not at home when my father dragged my mother anJ put hor into the cellar about a month before her confinement. 1 was down at Oyster's I believe. I was hired there .by the week. I've told all I know about the abuse.. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I was in the room when gran- ny took the chocolate out of the pot.. That was the chocolate that was made for the supper for all the family. Granny said the chocolate poured out was for mamma. 1 saw the chocolate piit into the bowl. ■ I saw the bowl before the chocolate was put in. Granny got the bowl herself. The -* bowl was clean. Nothing was put in the bowl but the chocolate. Father was not by when the chocolate was put in. I did not see my father go to look at the chocolate. The chocolate stood on the stove while we eat our supper. I was by when granny put the chocolate on the waiter.* I saw granny leave the room with the chocolate on the waiter. Granny told pa- pa to (lake the candle and light her up. Granny went foremost. Father was not out of the room after granny dipped it up before granny took the chocolate up stairs. Nobody went up besides granny and papa. I went up "right after them. I can't tell whether mamma began to eaj the choco- late before granny left The room. I got the cup for my father to make the mint tea inl' The cup was a clean cup. I saw the water that was taken up to make the fea. Pap dipped the water up. The water was taken out m of the bucket. I was by when the mint was got. I saw the mint put in the tin cup. There was nothing put in besides the mint. I went up with pap to mamma with that tea. The tea was thrown out wheti mamma said it was bitter. It was thrown out of the window. Granny made the spear mint tea in another cup. J can't tell why mamma and papa lived on friendly terms fair three or four months. Pap said they would, make a vendue andin the spring they would mbvq off. I was by when mamma died. I did not see granny make the spear mint teaX Mamma just tasted it and said it tast- ed in the same way. She just took a little hit of that pap made, and said it tasted bitter. I can't tell whether mother was easier after she took the laudanum.'' She did not vomit so much after she took the laudanum. I was by when the laudanum was dropped out., I counted the drops. Fifty drops were given her. Granny set the cup to the.fire, cohtainipg the spear mint tea. I can't tell whether .pap was by or not when granny made that te*l Mrs.'Marinus was'not at our house when pap put mother in the cellar on ne*:- , year's day. We all drank chocolate out ofthe same pot that it was taken out of for mother. After Mrs. Sechler came pap Wept for Mrs. Callahan. I met pap as he came down with Mrs. Callahan., Mother had been deatl fifteen minutes when I met them. ReWxamitied by Coumel for Commonwealth—Mother complained of pains all over; she drank a tea cUp full of the hysarr tea. Grandmother or papa threw the mint tea out of the wind,qwf ,t. ,.,; ;. ■ ....... * -.Susannah Earls, called—[the daughter of the.Prisoner at the bar,] In answer to questions in relation to her competencyj'trfe witness replied l I am in the 14fh year of my age, If I dr>n't speak the troth I won't go'to the good place. • The meaning ofanPath'is, that we must speak the truth. If a persondon't swear the ■trnrh'Phey-go to hell. Witness swonm. • nr" • I was at home when my inoth-er was taken had, ■■L'w'as not at home wheo they were getting supper; when I cataedibote they atei They: took. mace. > mis s;ipp?r up. I can't. telVwho poured the chocolate out, but granny told me she did*. I did not sec the chocolate taken up stairs. I saw granny have hqldof the waiter. While mamma was eating her supper, Livy Secii- isr came in. Livy stayed Awhile. The baby, Sarah, was up. Mamma sai-1 that Sarah wanted up in the bed with her, aad then she said, Susan take her down stairs!'' I took her down stairs. I do not know who fetched the waiter down. In abwut an hour and a half orlwo hours, mamma took sick; I d.Ki't kiio-v rightly how long it was. She rolled on the bed, appeared to ha in great pain, and vomited a goo.i deal. Papa said he had some mint cicwn stairs, that wuj very good for pains, and I'll make you some. Very wei! siyrf Xe. He mad-; her some tea, she said " it burns my heart." I think he gave it to her, or else granny gave it to her, I can't say which.. Granny said to pap, thXs pepper nii,;t you've got, I've got spear mint. Granny Ave at in! > the room and fetched the mint out and she made it. She gave it to mamma to drink, amd mamma said it is, the same kind, it is bitter. Malm- ma sui 1 John the:-.; is a laudanum battle in the bureau down stairs, go and get it and give me some of it. He went and got the bottle. He dropped out fifty drops; my sister sat by and said she counted them while he drop- po I them out. I3h nave them to her. She said that did her no good. In the manning about roar o'clock, mamma she died. Before mamma died, pa- pi Vent ov\.*r for airs." Sechler. Mrs. S came over ; granny was sitting by the fire place, and had the child in her arms. Mrs, S. felt of mother's feet in the first place. MAthoi asked for drink when Mrs. S. came in, and she wont and got her ad; ink. She could not drink. Mrs. S tried to lift up bar bead, but she,coukl not drmk. All mother vomited, pap told us to throw out,' and we throwed it oat. She vomited in a pot; she vomited at different times;-she vomitecf a good Seal; she said the pains were all over her. I know nothing of my mother's vomiting at any other time. I have heard my father threaten my mother. I have heard him say " he would lay her asleep;."' can't tell how.long before mother'sdeath, not very long I think. She was scold- ing hi.n about Mari.i Moritz, when he said he would lay her asleep. I have saen him whipping her, and put her in the cellar. It was a couple of months or threejfrefore her con line mem, fsaw him whip her. He had a horse line two or three double, and he whipped her with that; it was leather. He whipped her very hard. She was baking, and was going to the oven with some biead. Granny was in the bar room, and had been talking to papa about Maria Moritz? and as mamma was coming out with two loaves of bread between the two 'houses, he met her and began to whip her. As I saw him whip her I ran out,and he left her, and took after "me to whip me. I had Sarah, the youngest child in my arms. I ran to GriJiu's. In the evening he started from home; I Saw papa go down the tow-path. Granny had been in the bar room, and vyas saying something to him about Moritz's, when he came out and whip- ped mamma; mamma had said nothing to him. He whipped her on her back. That was not the time he. put her in the cellar ; he put her in the cellar onrnew year's morning, andrthen swore if she would budge out of thfe' cellar, he'd kill, her. I guess she was in the cellar an hour or info horns. It is a year since he began to use her bad, it may be less. I never heard feinv threaten her at any other time. I did not live at home all the time. I lived a while at Oyster's. { think I lived at Oyster's two or three months. Tbfo was a good while before mother died. When I came, home, I saw thorn scolding together. . I've heard my father say he loved Maria Moritz aleea^ dv; I heard him say he would go to see Imr whence pleased*.and eojtw- :He,rnewhen he .pleased, it. was none of tru maid's .business.-;. ,Ma.ria. livedo,' 31 our linuSe three or four weeks. One time Maria was coaxing mamma to g'd to Milton to see her neighbours. Mother went away [to Milton J on Saturday; and came back on Monday. Father remained at home. I was at home; sind my sister Mary Ann, Maria Moritz and the little children. Adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. TnrRSDA" Morning, Feurtmry 4. Susanna Earls, co;tti?ii/eeZ—Before the first court a couple of weeks, papa,*1 , Kent for us to come up and see him in the jail. I went up with my sister Mary and Grandmother. I asked papa if he thought mamma poisoned, her- self, and he said no. I then asked him who he thought did it, he said "it was his mother that old bitch that done it—if it was not for her I would not be in the condition i am." He did not say any thing more about it. He said "if he should be hung, he would see two more hung along side of him.'* When we came up to the first court, he said "girls do not be too hard on me^ - try and save me if you can." Grandmother was not by at the first conversa* ♦ion; he told her afterwards, in my presence, that it was her that done it. Grandmother did not say any thing to him but ju?t walked off. I don't know that grandmother is hard of hearing. Father spoke with a middling loud voice. I .don't know whether she heard him or not, blithe said it. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I can't teH when it was father ?aid he would lay moth*- asleep. Mrs. Marinus stayed at our house. Can't Jell how long she stayed. Can't tell whether she stayed two or three months'.- I heard father threaten mother while Mrs. Marinus was there. I can't lei!" ' Te whether Mrs. M;>rimis heard it or not. I think gratfny was not by then'^' They were scolding at the time ofthe threat. I think'father said 'once, slid fiad better bean asleep than doing what be was pcolding her about. I can't tell how soon father went away after this scolding. Father did not catch me when he ran after me with the lines. I do not know why he was going to whip me, I think it was because I stoned Maria Moritz one time wheri she came up there. Can't tell what papa was doing, bi'.t think he wa3 in the shantee wrapping up the lines-. [The skantke is sometimes called the bar room.]. I think he was using them on the horses, b'nt don't know. Grann)'" was by at the time father struck mother with the lines. Livy Sechler was down in the cellar while mother was down there on new year's day. Me and Mary was there. I think Dan Griffin was there, but don't know. Before" j he had put her m the cellar he had whipped b.er and tore all the clothes off of her.- I can't tell, but I think Dan was there at the tim;Xie whipped her. He had nothing in bis hands—he struck her. Mother went to Milton witlS^ ....* ', Mr. Swenk's boat. I don't think she went more than once while Maria Moritz lived at our house. Father did not go along with her to Milton* » ' on Saturday. Father did not go to Mi'ton on Saturday with his boat —he went on Monday morning. I don't think Father went up th > river; with his boat on Monday morning. lie brought mother home on Monday, I went along w'uh him, and Sabinn Moritz went with him. ? don't know whervMaria Moritz lived with us, I tlfin'k irwas'-the same year mother died.' 'I doft't think Srtbiha MoiTtz'eame back'on the'boat with us. I lived1 at Oyster's after Maria Moritz lived 'at our house, 1 think. I heard father say he loved Maria Moritz, a -good rn^ny times—whenever him and mother scolded about it, he Would always tell h'er.that. I never heard him tell her so before Mrs. Marinus. I did not see grandmother dip chocolate out for mother. Indeed I don'tkneiw when the chocolate was dip't out for mamma. I was ;»t home when they were eating supper, ande-st supper with the rest of th* S3 Untidy. I think father gat supper, I ain't sure. I drank chocolate. Father ''rank chocolate. Dan Gnliin's is a little piece from our house, can't tell hofr far—on the same side of! the canal, below our house. There are twelve months in the year, I think, sir. I think there aie twenty-four hours in a day. Can't tell how many days are in a month. Indeed, I don't know how long ago it was I lived at Mr. Oyster's. Oyster's christian name is Benja- min. Mary Ann was at home at that time. When I went to the jail the .first time, my grandmother, sister Mary, and Sam went along. We were in the room with father most all the time. Sam knew where the jail was and he took us there. There was another man in the jail, I don't know who he * yas—sometimes there were two men there. The man that keeps the prison was in once in a while. Can't tell if he was in when father said granny did it. We come up in a packet boat—don't know whose it was. 1 don't know who I told father's conversation to—I told it to Mrs, Callahan. I don't know what was the reason I told it tq her. I believp I told it to Margaret O'Neal. When I came home they asked if he was well and what he said to us, and I told them. I live still with Mrs. Callahan. I lived there pretty near all the time since mamma died, I lived with her before I came up here. I came up with her. Tho conversation spoken of in the jail was before the last court. Can't tell how long it was before, but I believe it was a week cr two. Mr. Miller, from Peqnsborough, I believe, brought us up to las' ' court—don't know what his name was rightly. [Muncy is sometimes called Pcnnsborough.] Mrs. Callahan, Mary and Mrs. Mowrey, came with us. I w. think Mr. Schuyler, tho Squire, was along. I went to see my father then. -My sister Mary was most always with mc. Mrs. Callahan was with us once to the jail, and Mrs. JVJowrev once. Mrs. Mowrey was not by when father toldXie granny did it. Sister Mary was. Father told us once we should teXjhe truth. There was no man by when he told us we should not be top hard upon him. There was not always men by when I saw father, at the |ast court. I went to see him every day "last court. Mp and our Mary went the first time. I do not think we went into the room the first time. We was not in the room M'hen Mm. Callahan, was vith us, we just stood at the gate. Nobody told me to remember all the conversation had in the jaih I did not go un to the jail before last night, [Wednesday] to see my father this court. I did'not see him last niirbt. I saw him this morning in the jail. Mrs. Barker was in the jail with tho baby that mother left. I came to court on Monday morning this time. I came up in a sleigh with Mr. Oyster. I have heard mamma say to father that he loved Maria MoriCc—he replied I lovq her and ita one of your business. He laughed and appeared to be pleased when sh«; told him. ChristUm £» chc-.-'ata. so wen as coffee. She says, oh well, mother, if you do r, ike'chocohro, I'll take chocolate. I arn .^nd of it. § but he wanted to go the other way, by his own house—and wanted me to go with him, and the rest to go the other way—he sajd two might go if they were afraid. The Constable would not agree to that. He said he did not want his mother to know, she would fret, and that was the reason he wanted Turner to go over the hills. The road over the hills is the common wagon road. Re-examined by Counsel for XZommonwcalth—I was up in the jail to see Earls and he asked me whether they had brought Maria Moritz up to be ex- amined. This was a week or two after he had been in prison. He said he was afeard they would scare her and she would tell something that was not true. I told him not to be telling me any thing, for I was to be an evidence. against him, and he stopped. Charles Low, (Coroner) sivorn—T went down on Monday the 19th of Oc- tober, and summoned a jury of eighteen men. I went as Coroner. I also . «^' summoned two physicians from this county, Dr. Jonx Peal, and Dr. W?r. &>' II. Ltdwio, and sent a request to Dr. James Dougal, of Milton. After.^v^B?-'J summoning, I was taken sick and returned home—I had summoned on the jury three Justicesof the Peace, and left word that if I was not able to attend the next day, I wished them to act in my stead. I promised to be at the burying ground, provided I was able to go over ; but I did not feel able to go over next morning, and did not go. I took the stage next night abcut one o'clock, and went to Money—the jury of inquest was there. I went with the physicians over to Mr. Kittoe's shop—they emptied two jars. There was something in those jars that looked like part ofthe human system. * * [The witness was proceeding to describe the chemical tests which were applied to the contents of the stomach, after the post mortem examination, at Muncy, when Mr. Parsons objected to hearing any testimony in relation to the stomach, or its contents, until it had been identified. His Honor Judge Lewis thereupon suggested the propriety of calling the professional gentle- ' ; » men, who made the scientific examination and analysis, to prove the facts with which they were undoubtedly most familiar. The counsel for the Com- ■ monwealth, concurring with the Court, then called :—] Dr. James Dougal, sworn—On the 19th of October last, I received a letter from the gentleman who has just been giving in his testimony—the Coroner of Lycoming county. He requested me to go the next day," which ■'-. was the 20th, up to Clinton township, to seethe subject. I left home for that purpose and did not arrive there until about noon—there was a great number of people there—the inquest and two Justices of the Peace from Muncy. X^^jfc Dr. Luowig and Dr. Peal, were also there. They were going on to open the grave and raise the subject, and had got down as far as the coffin, when I arrived. They soon took up the coffin, and carried it into the Baptist Church. After the inquisition was properly fixed, the coffin was opened, and the woman talon out and placed so that we could examine her. After the 29 clothes were removed, we examined the face, and found the mouth, nose and eyes all looked very well. After looking along tha fore part of the neck, we found it was natural also—clean looking. Immediately over the bone that passes down the breast, and between the breasts, we found the skin a good deal discoloured. The skin over the abdomen was dark coloured, such as you generally see in persons dead as long as she had been—about the fourth day. The fore part ofthe lower extremities was clean and natural. The lower part of the head and back of the neck, and all along the back was discoloured, reddish in appearance. The hips were dark coloured, and back of the arms also. The nails, and ends of the fingers were a very black colour. On the right side, about midway on the chest, the skin looked a- good deal injured, black coloured. The back part of the lower extremities was also coloured a good deal. Red and a little black. We then commen- ced to make the dissection—to examine the internal structures—and made a section of the skin from the neck down as far as the middle ofthe stomach. We then divided the skin so that'we could see the solt part of the bony struc- ture, and easily open it to the thorax. After we had done that, we raised up the bone and it made a pretty wide opening, so that we could see the lungsx the heart, the arteries that go up, the veins that go down, and the vessels that are distributed in different manners. We also made a division of the skin so that we could open the whole of the abdomen, down to the [ «■ pelvis, We then saw the whole contents of the abdomen, the stomach, the ^j^bowels, the liver, the kidneys, the spleen, the contents of the pelvis: the womb, the bladderx and the ovaria. We then took a very close examination of the upper part. The lungs appeared in their natural situation, except that the veins were filled with a dark looking fluid. We then removed the cover- ing matter of the heart, and found the veins carrying the blood to it a good deal hiled up, more so than common. The heart itself was lessened, and the muscular part of it a good deal softened, and looked darker coloured than generally does or ought to be. We found also a quantity of blood sent to the covering of the heart and the other serous membranes. The veins through- out the whole were more filled with blood than is general, giving it a red ap. pearance under the thin membranes. After we saw those appearances, we opened the heart so that we could examine the internal parts of it. In the righf auricle and ventricle ofthe heart we found a quantity of dark coloured blood, which is usual. We found the same in the left ventricle and auricle ; a thing that scarcely ever occurs with a person that has died a natural death. A thing very unusual, and scarcely ever to be seen. We then commenced examining the stomach. We found a good deal of disease in the coats of the stomach, and they had like to have separated from each other when we made the dissection. The lining membrane ofthe stomach was a good deal red in appearance with the quantity of blood that had been located there. In the stomach we found none of the articles that had been taken in for food. There was a dark red coloured fluid in the stomach, between a half pint and a pint in epiantity. The upper part of the small intestine we did not open at 72 all; but tied each end of it to be sent to Philadelphia. After tying the up- '!& Per Part °f t'ia small intestine, in such way that no fluid could pass out, we #|c?a'ihen opened the remainder down to the large intestine. We made no ex- amination ofthe upper part.of the small intestine, for fear of losing the fluid contained in it; but opened the remainder all the way down, which is of considerable length, until it joins the large intestine. The coats of this in- testine were so much affected that they were as near separating as those of the stomach. The small intestines were a good deal affected with the quan- so tity of blood that had been thrown around them, and had here, and there a dark red coloured appearance. There was no fluid, nor any thing of that kind, in them; they weie perfectly free. The external appearance of the iarge intestines was not so much affected as that of the small ones. We made no opening into them at all. We also observed that the liver had in- creased in size, and extended more over to the left side than it usually does; and pushed over the stomach more than is usual to the left side. The re- mainder of the viscera ofthe abdomen were not much altered in appearance — they were a little dark. We then looked at the contents of the pelvis. We found some coloured appearance immediately over the covering mem- 'hrane.of the bladder—the bladder was not filled with any fluid. We took some trmc to look at the uterus ; but made no incision into it. It was some- what enlarged—about the size we generally find it in the fourth month of pregnancy. The ovaria were both a little diseased. We then removed the seuli, and examined the appearance of the brain. The brain, itself, looked very well, but the veins were a good deal distended; a good deal more en- larged than they commonly are, and were very dark coloured. We were not prepared there to examine the fluids in the stomach and intestine which we had removed. We closed up the incisions and prepared the body decent- ly for the grave; and took the stomach and intestine over to Muncy for examination, as we were suspicious they contained a,good deal of arsenic, . for they had that appearance. There were some gentlemen called in to seelsf ■ the examination; and the most of us were certain that it was a poisonous substance that produced the colour ofthe flurd we had there. The shop tha( we were in was much deranged, and in such confusion we could not from}-| our examination produce the metallic aisenic, but we were satisfied from the slight examinations we did make, that there was a large quantity of it in—enough to .produce death. The Coroner, Mr. Low, was in while we were making the examinations. Dr. T. Wood was there part of the time. Dr. Ludwig, Dr. Peal, Mr. Kittoe and myself made the examination. Finding that we did not produce the metallic arsenic, so as to satisfy every body, wc sealed up the stomach,'the fluid, and some of the upper intestines and advised the Coroner to send them to Philadelphia. They were sealed up in bottles and put into a box after they were sealed. Previous to sealing tip the stomach and fluid, Dr. Ludwig and myself, each procured a three ounce vial and had them filled with the fluid—and took them home with us. We then wrote a history ofthe whole examination and all we had done, for the purpose of sending it with the substances to Philadelphia. After pre- paring this paper, we three physicians signed it. This was all I did ia Clinton township, and at Muncy We gave the box containing the sealed?'' .bottles to the Coroner, and toad the statement to the whole company that they might hear its contents. The next day after I went home, I took the three ounces of fluid I had taken home with me and went to Mr. Morisox's shop, and took Dr. M'Cleerv with me. Mr. Morisox was there—he is a good chemist and apothecary. We went on and made the necessary ex- aminations. I made a memorandum at the. very tinn—this is it. It was ?1$ before my late illness. It was prepared under my immediate inspection. "'•'5^ [Here Dr. D. produced a written statement giving a detailed account of '"' the chemical experiments performed upon the fluid at Mr. Mor'ison's labo- ratory, in Milton, which he asked leave to read. The Court informs I him that he was at liberty to refresh his memory with anv written memo- tandum, which he made at the tima the tests wvre applied; but that he 31 rould not read the paper to the jury. The counsel for priconer, thereupon consented to receiving the paper in evidence, which was. marked A, and read, as follows :—] '; The following experiments upon some of thefuid taken from ihe stcm- ach and bowels of the late Catharine Earls were instituted mere- ly to satisj'y curiosity: "About three ounces of the fluid was mixed with eight or ten times its bulk of distilled water, and boiled in a glass vessel, and then filtered through clean white paper. The object of the above process, was to dissolve the oxydc of arsenic, suspected to be present in the fluid, and also to separate from the solution the principal part of the animal matter. To some of -this solution, a small quantity of a?i:7noniacal sulphate of copper was ad- ded, which caused a green precipitate, supposed to be. arsenite of coppir^ or Scheele's green—but, from the circumstance of the solution still con- taining some animal matter, this experiment was not considered as indica- ting, certainly, the presence of arsenic. The balance of the solution was now slightly acidulated with muriatic acid, to destroy any alkaline sub- stance which might be present, and submitted to the action of sulphuretted hydrogen, when immediately the yellow sulphvret of arsenic began to be . manifest. This yellow fluid was then boiled for the purpose of expelling J$ the free sulphuretted hydrogen., and filtered. Tho yellow powder retained S*;u > by the filter was then dried slowly, put into a slender glass tube with socn-e freshly ignited charcoal, and submitted to the action of a strong beat, when "metallic arsenic deposited itself in the form of a thin crust upon the cooler part of the tube." [DV. D. then presented to the court the glass tube in which the metallk crust had been formed, as described in the statement he had just read ; and also a similar, crust formed from the white oxyde of arsenic, obtained in Mr. Morisox's shop.] Dr. Jamc." >)ov«al, continued— Thisr is a part of the tube containing th-s metallic arsenic obtained from the fluid. Here is some of the arsenic obtain- ed from the shop subjected to the same experiment. It was the white oxydc from the shop. I have kept them separate. The arsenic taken out of the shoo was subjected precisely to the same process mentioned m the latter par* ofthe statement. Mv opinion is, from the whole examination, that Catha- rine Earls was poisoned with the substance we found in the fluid. I call tluit substance arsenic. I think there was a small quantity of sulphur iu it, that made it look so much coloured. Question by the Court.—From the whole examination as described, wha* is your opinion, as a professional man, ofthe cause of the death of Catha- rine Earls? Answer b:; witness.—From the examination of all the circumstances al- ready mentioned, I believe that her death was occasioned by poison froia arsenic, which was found in the stomach, and the lining membrane of it. Witness proceeded.—All persons selling arsenic are generally readyAo give it, when asked for ratsbane. I knew Mrs. Earls for some years. The body taken* up at tho church-yard, and which we examined, was that of Mr<. E. She bad resided in Milton for some years, and 1 was acquainted with her and iX familv. Arsenic is used in some diseases in very small quantities; the sixteenth part of a grain is generally given as a dose. At- senic taken in a large quantity has produced very sudden death. Tl>e symp- toms are a good deal of pain about tho stomach and arms ; pains generally ; very violent vomiting, and thirst. [Dr. Dougal, having gone through with his examination in chief, re- marked to the counsel for the prisoner:—"I have now stated all the mate- rial facts that occurred under my notice. I have not long since suffered a severe indisposition; my health is much injured ; and my mind is of course affected. I do not, therefore, feel myself able to go more minutely into de- tails of the particulars. There are other medical and scientific gentlemen, who are to be examined in relation to the subjects investigated by me, in connection with them ; they will be able to give the counsel "for the prisoner entire satisfaction, upon the matters they might wish to address to me." Mr. Ellis replied, that he was aware of the delicate situation of the health of his friend, Dr. D. and that the counsel for the prisoner were not disposed to harass hirri with a vexatious cross-examination. They would trouble him with but a very few questions.] Cross-examined, by Counsel for prisoner—Arsenic has been taken sometimes several days before it produced death—with vomiting and un- comfortable feeling about the stomach. It has been taken sometimes three, four or five days before it occasioned actual death. Re-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—Generally speaking the quantity of arsenic has been large where sudden death has been produced. ,-'/£• Adjourned till nine o'clock to-morrow morning. Friday Moejting, February 5. Dr. William II. Ludwig, affirmed—I was present at the examination ofthe body of Mrs. Earls. When I arrived the body had been conveyed into the Baptist meeting house. The lid of the coffin'had been unscrewed, but the body had not been disturbed. I then requested the .byslantjers to identify the body. We then laid the body on a table for dissection. Hav- ing removed the clothing so as to give us a view ofthe external appearance of the body, we found the countenance natural, such as we see in dead bodies. There was a slight abrasion of the skin over the sternum or breast bone; and a discoloration or redness of the skin. About the place ofthe seventh or eighth rib on the right side, midway on the rib, between the anterior and posterior part, there was a livid spot. This spot arid the one before mentioned, I considered the result of external injury. The abdo^EEW* men was depressed and flaccid. On the inferior part of the abdomen, im- mediately above the pubis and bench bone, the skin was discoloured, as we see in incipient decomposition or putrefaction. The posterioi part of the head, neck and back was discolored by the settling ofthe blood, as is- natu- ral in bodies that have been three or four davs dead. The posterior part ofthe back, that is, the loins or small ofthe back, and the thighs also, were discoloured, as the parts before mentioned, and from the same cause, the natural settling ofthe fluids. The colour was a deep red, not a livid. ' We also examined the head, externally, to ascertain whether there was any in- ' '; jury upon it from violence. We found none. We then proceeded and laid open the abdomen, by an incision from the breast bone, the whole" length of theabdomen,downward to the pubis. We then made a transverse incision im- mediately beneath the ribs. By turning aside the flaps we had a complete inspection of the contents of the bowels. The viscera, or contents of the 88 ■abdomen, were all in their natural situation. The stomach a little more X the left side than usual, occasioned by a slight enlaigemont ofthe liver o« the right side. The external appearance of the stomach indicated the ex* jstence of intense inflammation, approaching a dark mahogany colour—of the most intensity at the lower end ofthe stomach. The colour was deeper in some spots than in others. After the stomach we found the small intes- tines also in a state of inflammation throughout their whole extent—deeper in some spots than "others. The large intestines had a natural appearance; they were distended with, wind and entirely empty. We did not open them —they were transparent. We then dissected the oesophagus, or gullet, above the stomach, and I passed a ligature round it, several inches above the stomach—tied it fiimly, and then separated the stomach from the gul- let. We aiso passed a ligature round the intestine, fifteen inches below the last ligature mentioned. We then removed the ouodenum and stom- ach from the body, and put them in a basin or tin feucket, I don't recollect which. We then laid open the small intestines throughout their whole extent; th>y v\tre empty. The internal coat of them was softened consid- erably, and appeared in parts to be torn eff from the muscular coat about them. Tne softness corresponded in appearance, "with the degree of inten- sity of inflammation in the intestine—that is, where it was niore inflamed, it was moie soft, and where less inflamed, less soft. We then examined the kidneys, which had a natural appearance and situation. The uterus was about the size we generally see it in women, after that time of delivery. The size ofthe uterus is not uniform1—we compaied it with the size it gen- erally is, about the fourth month in pregnancy. We cut it open, and found the coats about an inch thick at its fundus or superior part; the thickness of it gradually diminishing as we cut downwasds towards the neck of the uterus. The* internal surface of it was covered with a thick, glary mucus, approachiuga greenish cast at the infeiior extremity. The bladder appear- ed to be empty. We did not open it—it presented externally a slight redi dish appearance. I did not consider it much more than natural. We then removed the skin and muscles from off the chest—th'e anterior part of if; and separated the sternum, or breast bone, from the. ribs, by cutting the * cartilage, by which they are connected ; and we removed it entirely from the body. We then had a complete inspection ofthe contents ofthe chest. They were all in their natural situation ; though much engorged with blood. The lungs were crepitous, as they should be, after death. We found the large veins leading to the heart much distended with a very dark, thick ' blood. We opened the pericardium,'or covering membrane of the heart; it contained about an ounce and a half of bloody serum. We cut open the cavities of the heart, and found the right auricle filled with blood, which is not unnatural or unusual. The right ventricle beneath it was also filled with * thick, dark blood, which was an unnatural appearance. The ventricles are empty after death usually. The left auricle and ventricle were also filled with blood. The appearance of the auricle was natural, the venti icle unna- tural. The contents of the left ventricle was thick dark blood. We then proceeded to the head, and separated the scull tap from the ectill bone', and ■ removed the scull bone from, oil'the brain. The dura mater, or covering of Ibe brain, beneath the bone was much engorged with blood. We separated or divided it, which exposed the brain to view. The vessels- covering the brain were also much* distended with blood. We < ut into the ^b&!ar,ce of the brain and fopnd it also much crgorged with flood. We opened the ven- tiic'esorcaXie* in the brum and iemaa them cu .tnining no n.ore fluid tb*m I) 3J is natural. We opened the windpipe and found it natural. This closed cti* examination at the meeting hou^e. As the stomach had presented disease and apparent cause of death, we took it with us to Muncy, to examine tf further. We examined the che.st, head and other parts, to ascertain whether •here was auy cause of death beyond what appeared in the stomach. The spleen was natural in appearance, a little enlarged and somewhat engorged with blood, and a little shrivelled on its external parts. A very slight change in the spleen and pancreas. The Fallopian tubes, (connecting with the uterus) at their fimbriated or fringed-like extremities, were much engorged with blood. The ovaria were white on the outside, and of a dark red ap- pearance in the inside ; they were unnatural in their appearance. The veins of the body wherever they occurred, were engorged with blood, and a general softening ofthe muscular parts ofthe body. We then proceeded to Muncy, and opened the stomach, and found it to contain about a pint of bloody serum, mucus, and portions of the internal coats of the stomach. I took several ounces of this substance hotne with me. [Dr. L. here produced a vial which he alleged contained the fluid taken from Mrs. E's. stomach. He did not bring it to court with him, but sent home for it after he came here. He said " I consider it the same, with the exception of a little rain water. I tied it up the way it is, and it has not been since opened. Peter Sheddy brought it, and Mr. Kittoe gave it to me.t: Vial withdrawn until further identified.*] Dr. Ludwig, continued—We found the coats of the stomach much inflam- . ed; the inflammation internally was more intense in some parts than others. corresponding with the external appearance ofthe stomach,-w hich .was also deeper in some parts than others. The different cuts separated easily lrom each other. We then proceeded to make some chemical examination's of the contents of the stomach. In the evening we made some cursory exami- nations, but did not come to a conclusion decisively. We were detained at Muncy all night. In.the morning of the twenty-first, we djsfdled some rain Mato["f «• * * Dr' Dout;AL' Dr' Peal and myself staid at Mr. Hoffman'-. Mr. Hoffman is a tavern keeper in Muncy. The stomach and intestines were put into a bottle and left in Mr. Klttoe's shop over night. J think it was a bottle. We made experiments the evening before on the contents of the stomach. Mr. Kittoe was also present. [Counsel for Prisoner objected to hearing any evideuce inrelation to the examination of the contents ofthe stomach on the twenty-first, as it was not m the possession ofthe witness over night, and must therefore be identified. 1 he Court sustained the objection; and the counsel for the commonwealth, to prove the identity, then called;—] Dr. Edward D. Kittoe, sic or n—1 was at the Baptist meeting house, du- ring the examination of the corpse of Mrs. Earls. After the physicians had finished their examinations of the body, the stomach and duodenum were wrapped Up m a cloth.and placed in a tin bucket, and covered with a wash basin. I hey were given into my eharge, and 1 took them to Murtcv and kept them m my possession from that time until they were examined i,» Fhilade phia. I he contents of the stomach which we analyzed at Mimcv were taken from the body of Mrs. Earls. I was present at all the exaS wT /° 1?unc.v.--they vvere «""»« in <»y s^p. I went out several times or water, &c. 1 keep a drug store.. The physicians who experimented in- in* evening au.l in the morning, were Dr* Dovgal, LrnvaG, and IX yl 35 Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—The contents were left in that shop over night; they were put in a bottle with a ground glass stopper. I did not sleep in the shop. The shop was a good substantial room. ' I did not sleep in the house were the drugs were. I locked my- shop at ni«ht, and found it locked in the morning. The family of Cowden Hepburn lived in the house where I had my shop; the shop was one ofthe rooms of the house. There are three doors to the room; they were all well fastened. I found the articles in the morning, in the same situation that I left them in the evening. Dr. Wm. II. Ludwig called again—In the morning we distilled some rain water and took a portion ofthe fluid taken from the stomach and mixed it with a small portion of the water distilled and added to the mixture a por- tion of sub carbonate of potash, and dip't into it a stick of nitrate of silver, which threw down a flaky precipitate of a pale yellow or straw colour. We took another portion ofthe contents of the stomach, added to it. a portion of distilled water, and added a portion of sub carbonate of potash, as before, and then made a solution of the sulphate of copper, and poured the solu- tion into the glass which contained the mixture; it threw down a copious precipitate of grass green, generally called Scheele's green. In the precipi- tates of both experiments, there was combined much animal matter. The appearances presented, led us to believe there was arsenic in the precipitate. Wre took some white arsenic ofthe shop, dissolved it in distilled water, and touched it with nitrate of silver in one glass—in another we poured the so- lution of the sulphate of copper; the one case threw down the arsenite of silver, and the other the arsenite of copper. The colour of the precipitates procured from the contents of tlie stomach were the same as those produced from the arsenic ofthe shop. We repeated the experiments several times over, and the conclusions obtained warranted us in the belief that there was arsenic in the stomach. That is all we did in the examination ofthe stom- ach. We put the stomach and its contents into two bottles, and sealed them both—the stomach and part of the contents were put in one bottle, and the major part ofthe' contents in the "other—and left them in the hands of Mr. Kittoe. We recommended the Coroner to have thestomach and contents sent to Philadelphia for further examination. I made no further analysis of the fluid I took home, but repeated the same experiments—I had no blow- pipe to produce metallic arsenic. The nails of the bands were of a dark livid appearance. The nails of the feet I did not observe. I think the gullet presented a natural appearance. I believe the death of the woman was occasioned by-inflammation ofthe stomach, produced by arsenic. We did not discover any other cause of death, after a minute and careful ex- amination. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—There are other inflammations .<)f the stomach which produce death. I found my belief that the death of Mrs. E. was produced by arsenic upon its supposed, presence as shown by our tests. Inflammation of the stomach \yill produce redness. Redness of the intestines may be occasioned by ordinary inflammation, without the pre- ■sancc of poison. I cannot distinguish the redness which arises in ordinary cases of inflarrimation, from that occasioned by poisoo. The softness ofthe inner coats of the stomach, as spoken of may arife from other causes than poison. Also the softness of the coats ofthe intestines might have been oc- casioned by other causes than poison. From the anatomical examination I cannot distinguish whether 'the subject died from poison or other causes- The livid colour ofthe nails is -sjmetimes the case in persons' who have died from 3<5 other diseases; it is often the case where patients die from cholera morbus. The same result as to the blood in the covering ofthe heart may arise from other deseases than by poison. Inflammation in the internal parts of the stomach may arise from other causes than poison. Cannot always tell from the exterior ofthe stomach the difference between common inflammation, and that produced by arsenic. There are diseases which will produce the same mahogany colour in the external appearances ofthe stomach spoken of. The smaller intestines may in postmortem examinations present the same appear- ance of inflammation from other causes than poison. It is stated that the kidneys are generally affected when death is occasioned by arsenic. There was nothing unnatural in the appearance ofthe uterus. It is mentioned by some writers that the bladder is affected by poison—it may easily arise in a deranged state of the. system. [Here Mr. Ellts, for the prisoner, inquired of Dr. L. whether the Books did not assign other causes, than the presence of arsenic, for all the unnatu- ral appearances he had discovered in the post mortem examination. Mr. Armstrong, for Commonwealth, objected to the. question, on th0 ground that it was too general and indefinite; he said the witness ought to bo confined to his own professional knowledge; or if books were cited, they should be named that they might be referred to, and their authority tested- He thought, moreover, that the proper time to introduce the opinion of wri- ters would be in the argument of counsel, after having the authority of the books properly authenticated by evidence. Per Curiam.—Proof of the medical science, by, its professors, may bo regarded as analogous to proof of foreign laws. This Court takes, judicial uotiee ofthe laws of this Commonwealth, but the laws of other communities, (for instance Louisiana, which is governed, in part by the Roman civil law,) must be proved by persons acquainted with them. 15 Sergeant »$• Rawle 84. in doing so, practitioners are admitted to give their own knowledge.and the knowledge of writers of-authority, and to quote from them. Haggard's C. R. 216. The same may be done here, and the witness may also give his opinion of the relative standing of different writers on Toxicology. In giving the opinions of others he will, of course, be confined to such as are esteemed by himself to be writers of authority in the science which the witness pro- fesses. Subject to this qualification, the evidence is admissible.] Dr. Ludwig, continued.—The veins of the body may be gorged with blood from other causes than death by arsenic. Any intense inflammation ofthe' body might produce the same appearance. If there had been no suspicious circumstances connected with this'case, I would hot have suspected the pre- ' sence of arsenic without the chemical process. Thp intensity ofthe inflam- mation might have led us on to make the examination- The general effect of arsenic, after it is taken is to create nausea, vomiting, a sense of burnin" heat in the stomach, and in the msophagus or gullet, pains or spasm3 of the stomach, retching or an effort to vomit, and pain about the stomach and throughout the system. These! consider the more general symptoms of arsenic in the stomach. Intense thirst is also generally an attendant. Gri- ping of the intestines,'diarrhoca, and frequent purging*, sometimes attend it —not so frequent as the others. Blood might issue from the ears, nose stomach and eyes—and there may also be a discharge of blood and mucus by the diarrhoea. Spasms ofthe extremities in the latter stao-cs—thev may occur in any sta.^e of it. I would not think that the mouth would look burnt in general. It might in a protracted caie, as a natural consequence of disease. 37 The brain may or may not be affected. There was nothing about the brain of .this subject indicating arsenic. . 1 am not prepared to say that delirium attends the latter stages of it. It may or may not. Adjourned till three o'clock, P. M. Afternoon Session. Dr. Wm. II. Ludwig, continued—The experiment with the nitrate of silver was not aided by heat—nor was the experiment with the sulphate of eoppvr. We distilled the water and then took it as we needed it. 1 know a substance in chemistry named white arsenic—it is not a full chemical name. Arsenic is a metal?—in is metallic state it has the appearance of burnished steel. It is sold by druggists as white oxydc of arsenic—or arse- nious acid—or ratsbane—or simply arsenic. As a chemist, I would call it arsenious acid. It is called an acid in consequence of its having some of the properties of an acid. It is not sour. It is from its ready combination with the fixed alkalies, and its changing of colours, that it is called an acid. I am not prepared to say whether in its metallic state it is poisonous. Arse- nite of lime is a "muddy white—may be considered as white—it would de- pend upon the purity ofthe lime. The fixed alkalies, soda and potash, will decompose the nitrate of silver. I do not recollect what would be the colour of the precipitate thrown down. It is supposed by cheni'sts that arseniovs acid, alone, will not dec >mpo.?r> the nitrate of silver. The test ofthe nitrate of silver, used by us, cannot be relied on as an infallible proof of the pre- sence of arsenic. I think we added no ammonia to the sulphate• of copper test: I do not recollect We followed some ofthe formulas, hut what one I dont know, in making the experiments. I weighed the articles and made the solution. I have heard that a decoction of onions will produce the same result as the test ofthe sulphate of copper. The Scheele's green test has been questioned, and is not considered conclusive evidence of itself. Dr. Paris considers the two tests (sulphate of capper and the nitrate of siher) if properly conducted, conclusive. We burnt some ofthe precipitate, but'it was not a fair test—I was not sensible of an alliaceous odour, from the ex- periments we mnde. Wc did not attempt the reduction ofthe metal. Among the'opponents of the doctrine of crusts, or rings, it is contended that there are other substances that will produce rings similar to the arsenical rings. There is no one test that I would rely on alone as positively indicating the presence of arsenic in suspected matter. I would not rely upon the single test ofthe metallic ring of itself. . Arsenic is never found isolated from other metal; but is generally found with tin, lead, iron, silver, cobalt, &c. It is kept in the shops for sale in the shape of arsenious acid—Scheele's green, as a jrrass green paint—also, as a yellow paint called orpiment. It is also tued in the arts, on watch seals, colouring glass, &e. It is sold m connec- tion with cobalt, asflystone. There are various opinions as to the quantity of arsenic a pint of boiling water will take up. Some chemists say one part of arsenic will be dissolved by eighty parts of water. I dont recollect the proportion- Dr. Coxe's American Dispensatory, is good authority. The works of Henry are considered good authority. All authorities wc consider liable to be tested. Dr. Beck is one ofthe standard writers on Yfedical Juris- prudence. Ryon's work I do not know. Wood & Bacbe's Dispensatory is o-ood authority. I know nothing of Chitty's Medical Jurisprudence. Nichol- son's Chemistry I do not know. . Turner's Chemistry is good authority. I would consider the te?\ of nitrate of silver, sulphate of copper, sulphuretted hydrogen, the production of tris mctafiic ring from the precipitates- thrown ♦vv.; V» S*s !S down with the other experiments, breaking the glass and taking out the ring, putting it between plate* of copper and heating it, and producing the allia- ceous smell, a decisive test of the presence of arsenic. The plates ot cop- t±* per would not be necessary to the production of tho alliaceous odour. It f*Z could be done on coals. It is generally heated on plates of copper for the •'white ring it rmikes. I do not enumerate the white ring as necessary. The others without that white stain or ring I consider a decisive evidence of the" existence of arsenic. The alliaceous odour of itself is a very uncertain test- It hasheen found that heated charcoal whhpotash, between plates of copper, will produce the metallic lustre or white ring. I think there is a prepara- tion of mercury, that -vil! produce the metallic crust on glass—it is called cinnabar, or siilphurct of mercury. It amy be tmub so as to resemble, very accurately, the arsenical ring. The results of tests made by re-agents would depend wholly for their accuracy upon the purity of there-agents themselves. I did not examine the nit rati', of silver, chemically, at Mr. KIttoe's shop. Potash is produced as a metal in every degree of impurity. We used the snb carbonate of potash—hut did not use a chemical test to ascertain its quality. It had the usual characteristic appearances. We did not try the purity ofthe sulphate of copper or the nitrate of silver—-they had the usual . appearances ot those articles". I have repeatedly said that I did not consider • our experiments conclusive; but the agents employed had the proper ap- pearance and produced tho results anticipated. Rc-c.ramincd 61/ Counsel for Commonwealth—Ttio two tests we tried at Muncvl-do not consider conclusive; but the results crnnected with the symptoms led.us to infer the presence of arsenic, in era! symptoms I have enumerated appeared, I should In any case, if the gen- consider it a case of er 'W poison, and treat it accordingly. [Counsel for the commonwealth again offered in evidence the vial allud- ed'.to, in the testimony-of the witness last examined,, said to contain a por- Jiorvof the fluid, found in the stomach of Mrs.Earls; and to identify it fur- iTjej', called} '''•Peter Sheddy, sworn—[Vial shown him.] I got a vial like this from Samuel Derr, to :_rive to Dr. Ludwig. It. was wrapped up in. a ■newspaper.. I .got it at Mr. Derr's house next door to Dr. Ladwig's. I took it and put my handkerchief round it, and brought it up here and gave it to Dr. Kittoe, by order of Dr. L. I met Dr. L. on his way home. Cross-examined by Ceua X j'cr Prisoner—-It appeared to be a vial that was in the paper. I did not open it: I can't say what was in the papery^ but its appearance was- like this. I was not at Dr. L's hou*e to rmt it. Dr. Edward D. Kittoe, railed again—[Vial shown turn.] This is the same vial I received fram Peter Sheddy.. I gave it to Dr. Ludwig. [The Court decided against receiving the vial, upon the ground that it^ had not been sufficiently identified.] '"VSifcL Dr. John Peal, sworn—] was one of the physicians who attended at the burying ground. I was prosonf when the body of Mrs. Earls was disinter- red and opened. I assisted in the examination. I have heard the tesiimo- ny of Dr. Ludwig.* 1 waa one of the persons with whom the stomach was *As Dr. P. was proceeding: to give a c'ctiiled account ofthe post ;-icriem examination, he was requested by the counsel for the e/>ai:>:onweaUv!, jn view ofthe time tiia". had already been occupied on that subjer-t, to otnit it ait-^clhT:-, and proeocd at oa.ee to «n acccjnt , ofthe chemical analysis at Mutny. « left after it was taken from the decked. It was taken over to Muncy to Dr. Kit toe's dr-;g stoic,'for further examination, \\ e lock it from the bucket in'which it had been deposited mid put it in a basin. In presence of Drs. Dougal, Ludwig, and myself, there was an incision made into the stomach, wrich we found to contain about a pint of Moody matter, consist- ing of serum, mucus, and detached portioLs of the internal or lining parts of the stomach. We then proceeded to make some chemical tests of the fluid. I believe the first was with the nitrate of silver. We took some of the fluid from the stomach, and'added to it some distilled, rain water, and qub carbonate.of potash—we touched the surface of the.iimd thus combined, with the nitrate of silver ; the result was a copious depesite of a bright yel- low precipitate of a floccukmt appearance. That was the first test. The next was, we took some more of the distilled rain water, sib carbonate of potash, and some ofthe fluid from the stomach, combined as in the fust test, to which we added a solution of blue vitriol, or the sulphate of copper; the result was a copious grass green precipitate, called Schccle\v grtcn. That closed the second test. The result of each test indicaud the presence of arsenic.- Those two tests weie all we applied to the contents of the stomach- In the next place we tested the arsenic ofthe simp, furnished by Dr* Kittoe, by distilled rain water, sub carbonate of potash, and a solution ofthe oxyde of arsenic of the shop. We touched the surface of that with the nit rait or silver, and found it* to produce a sediment, resembling in ap- pearance, the result of the first test. It was the same in ar.pearr.nce with the result of the first test exactly—the \allow fXccuicut. Wcihen took distilled rain waiter, .-;;,/; carbonate of'potash, and the arsenic ofthe shop, to which wo added a solution of tho sulphate of copper, and found it to produce a precipitate ofthe same appearance as the second expeiiment on the contents of tho stomach, viz: Schccle's green. From the examination of tjje body, and the results ofthe tests,.wo \\«rc led fo believe that the death of .Mrs. Earls was occasioned by arsenic—v.e found no other adequate cause « for her death. w^ Cross-examined by -Counsel for Prisoner—The intensity ofthe imXmma- t lion in the stomach would have been sufdcit.mt to destroy the patient, if there had been r.o arsenic. The appcr.ianees were the same as might hav(ji been seen from other causes producing the r-mi.e dog ire of inflammation- I saw two or three stomachs while attending tlit- University, which were taken from subjects, who died of inflammation ofthe stomach, that did not present the .same appearance on account of having no detached portions ofthe inner lining or coats with them. The external appearance ot this stomach was of a'bright red, darker in some spots than others. The internal appearance corresponded with the external, with the exception of the detached parts of, the coats. There may be other diseases beside poison, that would detach the inner parts ofthe stomach. The greater pait ofthe small intestines ap- peared in a high state of inflammation—the internal coat was loose itf some parts and highly inflamed. There might be other diseases which would produce the same eflect. The at- was nothing in the appearance on dissection that might not have be«sh produced by other camas than arsenic. Arsciuou.t acid is used by naturalists in preparing birds. The presence of arsenic can- tot be determined by the jiost mortem •waminntion without a chemical Bo.alvsis. I took no notice of any unusual rigidity of the limbs ofthe sub- ject. We did not uie lime water as a test. It is considered a very delicate tc.-t bv some authors. We did not wc tho si/lp/'r,i < tied hydrogen as a test. Vt e did njt day ary of tho precipitates ivjv luii. them, nor did we attempt to • * 40 reduce the metal from the precipitates. I consider the nitrate of silver r very good test; but would not rely upon it solely. 1 would not consider the two tests used conclusive. I mean the tests alone, unconnected with the ex- amination of the body; and I would not consider the examination of the body, of itself, as evidence of arsenic, leaving off the chemical tests* I did consider the examination of the body, and the chemical tests used at Mun- cy, as conclusive evidence of the presence of arsenic, without reducing'the metal. 1 believe I would have to think there was arsenic. In our own opinion we concluded positively there was arsenic in the stomach ; there is not the least doubt remaining on my mind on the subject.' We concluded to have it tested further, to verify our opinion. I think the writers on medi- cal jurisprudence that I have "read, all agree that the reduction ofthe metal is necessary to prove the presence of arsenic—it may be so, but I aiii not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to say that it is so. I would suppose that there were other conclusive tests, but I cannot say what they are. We sent the stomach and a portion ofthe contents to Philadelphia to have them further tested. It just occurs to me that Dr. Coxk, a very able author, considers the nitrate of silver and sulphate of copper, as infallible tests with- out the reduction of the metal. I am not prepared fo say whether he consi- ders it infallible for chemical and medical purposes only, or also sufficient in medical jurisprudence. I have not known in my practice, the common causes of inflammation to hurry a patient off with as much rapidity as was the case in this instance. Re-excdnined by Counsel for Commonwealth—I think nothing but poison would produce so high a'statc of inflammation in so short a time. Cross-examined, again, by Counsel for Prisoner—I have not seen any cases of death by cholera. Common cholera morbus produces rapid in- flammation in some cases. The suddenness of the death from inflammation in the stomach is not of itself a proof of poison. Dr. Edward 1). Kittoe, called again—After the physicians had finished their examination, of the contents of the stomach at Muncy, the stomach itself was placed in a glass jar, which was stopped by a cork, and sealed over with wax. I should have stated that the stomach was previously cov- ered with diluted aluahol. The contents of the stomach were put in a bot- tle with a ground glass stopper, which was also sealed over. Both vessels were labelled. They were saaled in tho presence of the Coroner, and given into his care by the physicians, and by him again transferred into my care. They were packed in a box, and remained in my care, until I delivered them to Dr. Johx K. Mitchell. I delivered them to Dr. Mitchell, in Phila- delphia, on the .Monday following, who immediately proceeded to make ex- periments. The jars were opened in my presence. I was present during the whole of the experiments, and assisted at all of them. The first experi* ments performed were tried upon the fluid which had been contained in the stomach. They were the usual ones of ammonialed nitrate of silver, and ammo/uuted sulphate of copper. These tests being applied to the liquid contents of the stomach, produced no satisfactory results, owing to the quantity of animal matter held in solution. Upon examining the bottle which had contained tiie contents ofthe stomach, there was discovered at the bottom a white powder, which was supposed to be the suspected poison. A portion of if was removed into a watch glass, and dried by the heat of a spirit lamp. A portion ol it was then mixed with black flux, put mm a glass tub?, and heated to redness, by the-aid of a blow-pipe. The product was a 4\ £ne arsenical ring—the same which I hold here. '[Witness produced & it'tnallglass tube containing a very distinct mttallic : ing.] The specimeiu are marked with a diamond pen. This tube is marked " Eark—tfth Oc- tober', 1H35—solid found.'" Some particles of the crust or ring were re- moved and put upon a live coal, and gave out the arsenical odour. It is said to smell like garlic. Qther fragments of the ring were put into a drop of ammonialed sulphate of copper, and formed the SchecWs green; it was dried and is here ; this is it—[ producing a pill box.] It was placed in n. pill box, and marked on the lid in my presence, "J. A". M. Dry antnitt of copper." The blue ground is the crystallized blue vitriol, or sulphate of cdfiper—that portion which did not enter into combination with the arsenic. ^tter .these experiments were performed, a part of the same white powder, found in the bottle, was dissolved in boiling distilled water, and a small por- tion of that solution was placed in this tube, and a drop or two of ammeniated tvlphate of copper put into it on the end of a glass rod—it precipitated a Schcele's green. [Produced a small glass lube containing a grass green liquid.] This tube is marked "Earls—arsenite of copper." It is heimet- ically sealed. A part ofthe same solution ofthe powder wasplaced in anoth- er tube and a drop or I wo of ammonia ted nitrate of silver put into it on the end of a glass rod ; it threw down a copious canary yellow precipitate, which is here. [Produced a glass tube containing a dark'coloured liqmd.] Thia tube is also hermetically sealed and marked with a diamond pen " Arsenite of silver—Earls." It has since that time become black> by the action of the light. After that a part ofthe same solution was tested with lime water, in this tube, and threw down a white flocculent. precipitate. [Prcdteed a glass tube coiitaining a liquid corresponding with the witness'' description.] This was also closed, and marked iCEarls—Arsenite of lime." These tubes are not marked in my hand writing, but were marked in my presence. The remaining portion ofthe solution of .the powder was precipitated by a stream of sulphuretted hydrogen gas—the precipitate was a deep sulphur yellow. A part ofthe same was placed in this vial; ehe top of which was unfortu- nately broken, the morr.ing I left Philadelphia. There are, however, some particles of the precipitate adhering fo the sides ofthe vial. [Produced a broken vial as described'.] This vial was marked " Seujvi svlphnrct of arsenic." They were all marked with a view that 1 might identify them. I should have stated that the solution before submitting it to the sulj hnret- tcd hydrogen was slightly acidulated with mvriatic acid, for the purpose of destroying any alkaline matter it might contain. The rest of the precipitate was dried, mixed with black flux, placed in a glass tube, heated to redness Knd produced an arsenical ring. It is marked "Earls—-from crjrimcrtt.'",,. [Produced a glass tube' containing a clearly defined metallic ring.] Alter these results 1 was asked whether I considered the experiments tried si'fh- :rs in Muncy; the metal was not produced there. There was a ;arge quantity of foreign nutter in tho substance subjected to our cheuii- 4$ cal analysis at Muncy. I was by no moans satisfied that the examinations at Muncy furnished conclusive evidence of the presence of arsenic. 1 did not examine, chemically, the re-agents used in Philadelphia; they were made expressly for the purpose, with the utmost care ; I did not make them ; they were made in my presence.- I did hot sleep in the laboratory of Dr. Mitchell—it is not customary for any one to sleep in laboratories, I believe. It took from Monday till Thursday to make the examinations in Philadel- phia; parts of Monday and Thursday were included. I boarded in Third street above Arch; the laboratory is at the Medical Institute, in Locust street above Tenth. We devoted the whole of each day, except the bouts of meals, to the examination. The contents of the stomach were locked up in the laboratory when I went away, and always upon returning, were precisely in the same situation that I left them. The key ofthe laboratory was in the possession of Dr. Mitchell: While engaged in this examina- tion, we were visited frequently by other scientific gentlemen. The visit- ers consisted of some of the first practitioners of medicine in Philadelphia. There were also several chemists. Cinnabar will produce a ring similar to the arsenical ring. I know of no other mineral that Will. Cinnabar is an ore of mercury—it is the red sulphuret of mercury. I have made somo of these experiments myself, but have none about me. Arsenic is said by some Writers to he anti septic,, that is, prevents decomposition of dead ani- mal substances. It is said to have a mechanical notion on the stomach, when thrown into it in large quantities. Some high authorities say it is a caustic upon living matter. From the whole appearance of the stomach of Mrs. Earls, I should suppose there could be no disease but that occasioned by some acrid matter taken into the stomach, that would produce the etTecU which were observed in it. I never saw a case of choiera. [Here Mr. Ellis handed to witness -two vials containing imperfect metallic rings.] These vials contain imperfect rings produced by cinnabar. If there had been cinnabar present when we applied the.sulphnnltsd hydrogen test, the precipitate, would have been red. Tee yellow tinge rm the metallic ring produced by Dr. Dougal, is accounted for, hy its having been made from orpimznt, or sulphuret of arsenic. I made the ri«gs of cinnabar in these Vials, at Mr. Thomas Hall's hotel in this town. This ring is not so uni- form as the arsenical ring, nor is it precisely the same colour. I suppose the colour is owing to the impurity of the cinnabar, from which these rings were made. There can be rings made from cinnabar which tho best judg- es cannot distinguish from arsenical rings. Corrosive sublimate approach- es nearer to the white powder exhibited here, than any other preparation of mercury. Corrosive sublimate is a poison. Calomel is the sub muriate of mercury; it is extensively used as a medicine. Tartar emetic is -the tartrate of antimony. Tho preparations from antimony are also poisonous. Tartar emetic is a poison. I cannot say whether boiling water would take no the same quantity of arsenious acid if there was animal matter in the water, as it would if'the .water was pure. White oxyde of arsenic is most Easily dissolved of anv preparation of arsenic ; it is readily taken up by oils —vegetable oils and fattv matter. The quantity of the contents of the stom- ach usedaPMuncy and taken away by Drs. Dougal and Ludwig, wasabout four ounces in nil- There are sixteen ounces in a pint—fluid, ounces. There could not have been less than three drachms of the powder found in tho co-itents of the stomach in Philadelphia. We by no means supposed* we had it all extracted from the contents ofthe stomach. There was nothing 'bund in the stomach, but the bloody fluid, tht powder and same Xky v:M, 4i cus; among the powder was a small quantity*of sand. 1 should supp6?^' there had been a considerable quantity of arsenic thrown off the stomach] by vomiting. White arsenic is an oxyde of the metallic arsenic, formed by roasting the ores of cobalt in Saxony. It is found combined with other mat- ters besides cobalt. Native or metallic arsenic is said to be not poisonous; Cobalt or fly-powder is known to be poisonous. It is used in its metallic state to give metal a lustre; it is used in making several metallic alloys. As an alloy it is generally deemed innoxious. I have, perhaps rashly, sev- eral times placed arsenic in my mouth ; I never could distinguish any pecu- liar taste in it. , Re-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—-There are other articles which will produce a green besides arsenic—not Scheele's green, nor pre- cisely similar; If cinnabar was present in place of arsenic, the precipitate would not be the same in any ofthe tests that we applied. If corrosive svbli- mate was present, the precipitates would not be the same as those produced ; nor would tartar emetic produce similar precipitates. To make the matter short, there is no other article than arsenic, can produce all those results. The production ofthe metallic ring is considered the highest possible test. Cross-examined again, by Counsel for Prisoner—I'have answered that the production of the metallic ring is the highest and best possible individual test; but there are writers on the subject who deny that this test alone can be relied on.. Dr. James Hepburn, stvorn—The cause of cholera might produce a state of disease as rapidly fatal as arsenic. The cause of yellow fever may also act as violently. I never have had a case of cholera, or yellow fever; we have had in this country high grades of bilious fever, rapid in their course, and resembling yellow fever. The inflammation here described, is said to have been very intense. It is not often that those intense appearances of inflammation will occur so soon. - Those appearances may occur thus early in febrile desea,ses; I canqot say certainly; the vessels may be speedi- ly distended with blood by congestion. The common symptoms of poison- ing by arsenious acid are : an acrid taste, nausea^ anxiety, vomiting, diar- rhoea, pain in the region of the stomach, inflammation ofthe lips, tongue, palate, throat and oesophagus, pulse small, frequent and irregular, or slow and unequal, with oppressed breathing, palpitations, syncope or fainting; in- tense thirst, pains in the limbs, spasms, skin cold and clammy, frequent sink- ings, convulsions and death. Dr. Christison divides the poisonous effects of arsenious acid into three orders of cases, according to the character and violence of the symptoms. In the first order, the poison produces symp; toms of irritation, and-inflammation along the course of the alimentary canal, and commonly kills in from one to three days. Ih these cases the quantity of arsenic taken is supposed not to have been great, In the second* the signs of inflammation are moderate, or even altogether wanting, and death occurs in from five to sixhours, at a period too early for inflammation to be fully developed. In these cases the quantity ot arsenic is generally large. In the third class, death is protracted for at least six days, sometimes much longer, or recovery may even take place1, after a-tedious illness; and the inflammatory symptoms are followed by those referable to nervous irri- tation, such as imperfect palsy ofthe arms or legs, epilepsy, tetanus, hysterii cal affections, mania, and coma. Here the quantity of arsenic taken is small, or a portion of it thrown up by vomiting. Discoloration of the skin after death, is not considered evidence of poisoning. The appearance about the feails, and ends of the fingers, as described, is a symptom before d?*ih. In u Mrs. Earls'situation, with-the violent pain and distress under which she seems to have suffered, fifty drops of laudanum would be a moderate dose", I would have given that quantity. In her situation the system might have been more susceptible of the immediate action of deleterious substanr.es. The existence of arsenious acid can be conclusively proved by tests, or re- agents, where the quantity to be experimented upon is not too small. The sulphuretted hydrogen gas, the ammoniacal sulphate of copper, the ammoni- acal nitrate of silver, lime water, the reduction ofthe metal, and the arseni- cal odour, are the most approved tests; 1 mean the production of the me- tallic ring. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—It is not possible to determine by a post mortem examination, alone, whether a-subject has died of arsenic. There is no anatomical appearance, by which you can judge of the actual presence of arsenic. There are appearances which would lead.us to suspect it. The appearance of the patient before death, could not determine posi- lively the presence of arsenic.. The tests of sulphate of copper, and nitrate of silver, are not, alone, sufficient tests of arsenic, in a criminal case. About five grains of arstnioub acitZ,'wou,Id destroy life. ,t.t is probable death would not take place very soon, two or three days—might be four days or more. It might be some time befhre so small a quantity would begin to operate. Orfila says no symptom has been observed for five hours/ One thousand parts of boiling water, will take up in solution one hundred aiftl fifteen parts of arsenious acid, ofthe opaque variety, and on being cooled down to sixty- nine degrees, Fahrenheit, will only retain twenty-nine, parts. One thousand parts of cool water, will dissolve, only twelve and a haif parts of arsenious acid, after having stood at least twelve hours. There are four hundred and eighty grains in an ounce. Sixteen fluid ounces in a pin'. A pint of pmyj water, would dissolve more arsenic than if it contained animal or vegetable matters. For the weight of a liquid pint, in Apothecary's weight, see Wood <$c Bach£s Dispensatory, page 111!). Pure chocolate is composed of the cocoa nut, but is generally adulterated with other farinaceous substances, as rice flour; and fatty matters, as butter and lard; sugar; and spices, as cin- namon; vanilla is also sometimes added. I do not think chocolate, would take up as much white arsenic in solution, as water. I think a pint of cho- colate, of the temperature at which it is" usually drank, would not dissolve two drachms, in the course of fifteen, or twenty minutes. If chocolate waa Continually agitated, a large quantity might be kept up in suspension. If there were solid food in the stomach, a portion of the arsenical powder, Would no doubt attach to if, and be thrown up by vomiting. All that the chocolate would retain in solution, would of course be thrown up with the chocolate, and all that which it held in suspension. I think a good deal of it would come up in this way. Examined by the Court—With any ofthe preparations of mercury, likely to be mistaken for the white arsenic, the sulphuretted hydrogen will throw down a dark precipitate, instead of a yellow, which it does with arsenious acid. Lime water is also a test, between mercury and arsenic ; if the sus- pected powder was corrosive sublimate, lime water would throw down a yellow precipitate, instead of a white, as it does with the arsenious acid; lime water throws down a black precipitate with calomel. Cross-examination by Counsel for Prisoner, resumed—Uvvxand Chris- tmon say that a high state of inflammation will not take place in a few bcNirsfrorn t hi-.poison. My imprc-;.ion is-, that it would require a longed 40 time to produce the appearances of inflammation in this case, than aeema to have occurred. Examined by the Court—In cases of sudden death from arsenic, it is sup- posed to act immediately upon the neivous system, interrupting the vital functions, especially those of the heart and respiratory organs. "When the lungs are thus affected, the venous blood is no longer decarbonized there, but is returned to the left side ofthe heart, in its dark venous state, from which it is reluctantly propelled through the arteries, (instead of the revived bright arterial fluid,) to the various parts of the body, but totally unfit to support life, producing engorgement and congestion of the capillary vessels, espe- cially those of the brain, and abdominal viscera. There is a case mention- ed in the books, of a person who took a large quantity of arsenic, I think half an ounce, mixed up in'a tumbler of water, in which death took place immediately, no mark of disease remaining. Cross-examination continued—Christiso:x is considered the best English, and Orfila the best French, author on Toxicology. No one of the "tests, taken by itself, will amount to more than a probability. Five tests will of course be five probabilities. You commence with one probability, but takino- them in connection with each other, as you proceed, each strengthening the other, they increase in force, and presently amounted certainty. I think a fair presumption of certainty, as to the presence of arsenic, arises from a number of tests. The ammoniacal nitrate 6f silver, and ammoniacal sulphate of copper, as tests of arsenious acid, are rendered uncertain by the presence of vegetable and animal matters, in its solution, when the suspected poi- son is-small in quantity, and only a slight change of colour anticipated. Having precipitated the sulphurct of arsenic, by the action of sulpuretted hydrogen gas, and from this produced the arsenical ring, or metallic crust, th«'. arsenic will then be freed from animal oi vegetable matter, with which it might have been mixed in the stomach of the deceased. If one of these tests, on being applied to a portion ofthe metal thus obtained, produces its 'characteii3tic result, you will then have more than a probability. „The am- moniacal sulphate of copper, was thus applied in this case, producing its ap- propriate result, viz: Scheelc'sgreen, and this to my mind is a certainty. Re-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—The appearances of inflam- mation would be in proportion to the time the arsenic was in the stomach. There would be time for inflammation injseven or eight hours. All symp- toms are more or less dependant upon circumstances. Adjourned till three o'clock, P. M. Afternoon Sessiox. Susan M'Callaster, sworn—I have heard Earls say he would lay his wife asleep. 1 heard him say this three times. It was before last Christmas a "ear once, and twice after new year's a year. Once I heard him say she ought to have her throat cut. Marinus' wife was bv I think when he said it. I heard him make no threats but these. I saw him poke her into the trough* once at Mr. Mangus'—it was the water trough- He bent her over the trough backwards ; it had water in it; it was a fountain pump. There was snow on the ground. She was abused and verv much wet; and he tore the clothes ofTof her. I can't tell exactly how long he kept her in that situation; but I suppose about twenty minutes or so. Mrs. Marinus came to her as- sistance and relieved her. Betsey Mangus was present—there were differ- ent ones round, but I can't tell who they were. I went down with Mrs. Earls. The first I saw of Mr. Earls at that time, was at Mr. Mangus'. Mr. 47 Moritz was in company with him, and Maria Moritz also. I saw them first down at the bridge at Mangus'. Mrs. Earls did not say any thing that I heard—he said nothing to her while he was putting her in the water. I saw him last new year's a year, take and throw her out into the kitchen. He took her from the breakfast table by the neck and jerked her from the room out into the kitchen—then he brought her back into the room again by the hair! He catched hold of her hair and pulled her into the room. She was standing up then when he fetched her into the room again. He said nothing to her. I went to tell Mr. Griffin, to come up, for I was afraid Earls would kill his wife. Mr. Griffin went up ; I did not go back. I saw him whip her once afterwards, that was after new year's. I was not living with them at that time. I saw him haul her over the floor twice with a stove rake ; the rake was made of iron; a cross piece of iron fastened on wood. This was the morning before he poked her in the trough. He had the rake right under her chin, the iron part of it, and hauled her. She lay lengthwise on the floor on her back,. I saw the commencement of it. She was sitting at the stove when he came in,, and then he took up the rake and she took hold of it and he slung her round and throwed her on the floor. I did not hear him say any thing at all. He was scolding her that she had not something for him to eat when he came home. It was between 12 and 1 o'clock in the day. He said nothing more to her till he got the rake. Mrs. Earls said nothing at all, that I heard. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I live in Milton; I have lived there about eight or nine weeks. I live with Wm. Morrison. I lived with Mr. Daniel Griffin before 1 went there; I was there about nine weeks—I was there when Katy Earls died, and remained there until the last court. I am not married. I lived at Mrs. Callahan's before I lived at Griffin's, and at Mangus' before that. I lived at John Earls' the first summer they moved up from Milton to Muncy ; 1 came with them and remained about seven months, and then left theim I was at Griffin's when I heard Earls say he would lay his wife asleep. I still went to Earls' backwards and for- wards. 1 was at Earls' at the time. I cannot write. Nobody put this down. I think Mrs. Marinus was there once, when he said he would lay his wife usleep. He said he would lay her asleep some time or other. Mrs. Marinus was in the room cr kitchen—she was in the house. Earls, and his wife were quarrelling together when he said it. He did not say she had better been asleep. Old Mrs. Earls was pot by—Sus'an was. Don't know that Mary was; I saw Susan. I never told this to any; body that I know of. I don't know when 1 was summoned to court. I told it first in Pennsborough, before the squircj. He said it two or three times—can't remember when he said it. He did not say how he would lay her asleep. They were quarrelling, together when he said it. Earls did not appear to be angry when he said it. She^vas not angry —they were quarrelling with- out being angry. He said good naturedly he would lay her asleep; and laughed about it at the same time. Katy would kind of smile. I did uoj. laugh. I don't mind whether Mrs. Marinua laughed, nor whether Mrs. Marinus and I talked about it afterwai ds. Don't mind that I said any thing i;bout it, at all. 1 never told Mrs. Callahan. I heard John say it thr.eq times, and he'd laugh about ii. T never seXd him in any other way than lauirh. wheu he.was in the worst of his anger. She did not laugh—she kind of smiled after lie went out of the room. I can't tell whether lie was iingry when he said thia. I can't tell whether he kept her more than jUyeutv minutes bent over the ttaaigh. I suppose it is about three quaitois 48 of a mile from Earls' to Mangus', I never mensured it. I went with Mrs, Earls down to Mangus'. Earls had a horse and sleigh with him—he drove down to Mangus' with the horse and sleigh. I was going down and she, came running after me. I saw her catch hold of his horse's bridle there, before he put her in the trough. He bent her backwards right into the water. Oh yes, it did so wet her, we had to strip her in at Mangus'. I ran for Mrs. Marinus and she came out. He had her in the same situation when Mrs. Marinus came out. I did not hear him say any thing to her, be- fore he put her in the trough.' The horse' wasi. hitched fast to the fence by the trough. No person was in the sleigh then; old Mr. Moritz was in till he got to the bridge, there he got out. Mr. Earls got out to }ay the fence down. Mrs,. Earls held on to the horse, and I said "Katy let the horse go" —she still held on, Mrs. Marinus fopk up a club or a stone to hit John. • I did not interfere. John left his wife go and' ran after'' Mrs. Marinus into the house. This was a year ago this winter. 1 can't tell whether there was ice in the trough; there was ice outside pretty thick where he bent her over. It was moonlight. The children were all by when I saw Earls draw his wife from the breakfast tabie, last new year's a year. I lived at Griffin's, and just went up before he came home. She just had breakfast ready. Dan Griffin was not by. I went down and sent Mr. Griffin up there. Earls ordered his wife to take the bucket out from under the stove, where he had his lamprey eels in. She told Mary to go and do it; and hq said she should do it. Slje said leave it stand till after breakfast, and she'd carry it out! Then he got up and took her by the neck and says, "I'll make you take it out." Than he pushed her into the kitchen, and pulled her in again by the hair. Then I went away—I had had my breakfast. Mrs. Griffin I think had sent me up for something; I ain't sure. John did not laugh any, he was very angry that inpiuing. I had been there but a few minutes when John caniehome. I-went down and told Mr. Griffin he should go up, for I was afraid Earls would kill his wife. Griffin went up. Mrs. 'Griffin did not go up. Can't tell whether it was before or after this he, hauled her over the floor with a coal rake—don't know whether it was be- fore or after new year's. There was no one by but myself. Mrs. E. and John were not quareliing about me. I lived at Giifiin.'s then. It was'be: iween 10 and 1 o'clock—it was in the winter, that very day before he put her in the trough. She hollowed something, but I went out ofthe door. 1 think she had. not hold ofthe rake. He pulled her from the stove towards the window. lie throwed her down. She was sijtingat the stove, he camei in and said why have you not something to eat? She said something, then he up wilh the coal rake, and she catched hold of it—she lay on her back and let him pull her. f lived at Griffin's. I think 1 told Mr. Griffin to go up that Earls had his wife on the fioor with acoai rhke. I had no suspicion he was going to kill her. Serhler's is uoarer to Earls' than Griffin's is. It is about one hundred rods to Griffin's. The old woman was not by—Su- san was, she ran out in'thc kitchen. Can't fell where Mary was; I thinlc she was living some where of other. I suw Earls whip his wife once, but I can't toll who was by. I lived at (Xirhu's then: and had been washing at ":* Earis' that day. It was afcer dinner—I was hanging the clothes out—don'jt w- ,jr mind what Mrs. E. was doing, and don't know what'he whipped her for; he was whipping her'wheiv I came in. He struck her across the back with his lumd, and put her out of doors. I can't tell when this was—it was long be- i'-ne last christmas was n year. Katy was not drunk, I "think;.I never saw faar drink any hcpi-M-. He pushed her out of the door, and hither across 4» Uie back with his hand. The weather was warm then. This was at the shantee; some folks were in the kitchen, but I can't say who they were. This shantee is the bar room. I did not see Mrs. Earls take up the tongs to strike John. I did not hear him scold her for having taken a drink twice within half an hour—did not hear that mentioned. She did not take up the coal rake to strike John that I saw. I did not see any woman by the name of Swenk, about the sleigh or trough, the time that Earls put his wife in the trough. I saw John splash water on his wife. He tore the clothes of off her. I did not hold the horse. My right name is Susan M'Callaster; the folks call me Susan Swenk, sometimes. Swenk raised me and 1 went by that name. Jacob Swenk, of Milton. I left there when I first came up with Mr. Earls. Solomon Mangus, sworn—I never saw Earls, myself, abuse his wife. I was in the bar-room and heard a noise; I went to the bar-room door and looked out, and by that I saw a person running into the next door below the bar-room'door which I took for John Earls. I went to the next room, and as I came there I saw Mr. Earls walkipg through the room towards the door where I thought I saw him coming in, I asked him "what is the matter?" He said "I know." He went out of the door and I went back into the bar- room again; as I came into the bar-room I saw Mrs. Earls standing in the bar. I think she came in from the kitchen, I could not see how she could come in but that way. She was.crying and wet all over. I asked what was the matter, and dont know what she said. I told her it was too cold to stay • there—she had better go into the kitchen to the fire. She went into the kitchen and I did not go in. Mr. Earls then came in at the bar-room door. At first when I saw him he had his oyei-coat and gloves on, when he came into the bar-room door he had them off. He asked me for a drink, and I set out the bottle and he took a drink, and then went into the kitchen—what passed there I can't tell you. He was in a little spell, and then came out and got in his sleigh and drove off up the road, and old Billy Moritz with him I think. After a little spell he came back from the direction pf Mo- ritz's and passed by toward home. The children were sept for and were all brought down and given their suppers—they were put to bed before he came .back. jSe came down to my house then again and came into the bar-room and asked me for a drink; after that he asked me if his wife was not in the other room. I told him she was, and that he might go in. They were in there a good little spell together; I did not go in. She told him not to he going out to Moritz's-—I could not hear well through the partition. Earls then said he wanted to take his children home ; they had to come out of bed, and he took them up home. She stayed there until next morning, which was Sunday, after breakfast—then she went over to Alick Marinus' across .the road, and stayed there till about noon, and then went up to Dan Griffin's. How long she stayed there I dont know only from hearsay-—I believe she went home on Tuesday. Earls told me once that tie was going to make a vendue and sell off some of his property, and sell his lot or rent it, for he could do nothing there—he would go to another place where he could do better. This was not more than two or three weeks before the death of his wife. He had a vendue—I was at it and bought some'horse gears and three socket poles. He had a boat, he took that down the river and the horse and sold .it the summer before. He sold a couple of beds, feather ticking, some old iron, horse gears, a trunk, a grindstone, some socket poles, and some old saws and augurs. He tried to sell another bedstead. He had no cow at that time, I bought a cow some time before that from him. I can't tell how '"' G 30 rhneh more he sold—he sold some fire tongs and shovels. I dont know that he had rented. In the morning between three and four o'clock Livy Sechler came to my house to tell us that Mrs. Earls was dead. We had been making apple butter and some were up. I went up to Earls' the Fri. day after his wife's death about ten o'clock in the morning, he said his wife was dead; he allowed he would bury his wife on Sunday or Saturday as near as I can recollect. He wanted to hear what I had to say about it. We made it out, and I was allowing he might as well bury her on Saturday as Sunday, for he was there himself and nobody there but his children and his mother. We agreed to bury her on Saturday about ten o'clock, but tho coffin did not come until about twelve. When the coffin came we took it into the house and Mr. Sheelz preached the sermon. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—George Lilly- made the coffin. It was a small funeral. I have seen larger funerals and I have seen less ones. There was a tuneral sermon preached in the Baptist Meeting-houso by Mr. Sheetz. Some people like Mr. Sheotz and sonae dont, lie is a Lutheran. He came to the house before the corpse left* I believe he made a prayer at the house. I dont know that the pump trough was frozen over, there was ice round it. It scarcely ever freezes over, it is not frozen now. 1 think Alick Marinus and his wife and Susan Swenk was at the trough at the time alluded to. Old Billy Moiitz was lame, and Earls said Moritz had paid him fifty cents to take him home—he had a sore foot—he is an old man. Some people in our neighborhood keep a corpse a little longer and some no longer than Mrs. Earls was kepi. Mr, Sheetz lives about two miles' from Earls'. I think John Hood went tor Mr. Sheetz; he lives with me, Jacob Hogendobler, called again—On the same day that we took Mr. Earls, and I think it was the first thing he told me, he asked me whether I thought he would get clear this evening; I told him I thought not, for they had sent, or were going to send, up to Wiliiamsport for the Coroner, and have his.woman raised and examined—-also, thev were going to send for .James. Dougal to Milton, and if there was any arsenic in her they would find it. lie said "there may be some in her, but I did not give it to her." In the fall some time, last'fall a year, or last spring, before the death of hi3 wife, I went with Earls «Jown to Milton; he took me down. Him and me talked about bis going out to Moritz'-—I told him it was not right. He said nobody had catched him there; and that "a person would almost risk their life for a pretty girl." I think that was all that passed at that time. He did not say who gave the arsenic to her. Elizabeth Mangus, sworn—One evening Mrs. Marinus and I were siN ting at the stove and heard a noise ; then I went to the door and saw Earls ha\e hold of his wife at the trough. I went down over the steps and Mr?, Earls ran into the room, through the kitchen and into the bar room. I went in at the other door and saw her standing in the bar all wet, and the sleeve of her dress was toin. -1 went into the other room, and Mrs. Marinus ran in and Earls after her, and he fell down; We went into the kitchen and put a dry dress on Mrs. Earls, and Earls came out and asked what was the matter. She told him he need.not ask what was the matter, he knew well enough. He said nothing that I heard, but walked out. He came down again in the evening and began to scold, and asked her what made her fetch ' the children down. The children were all in bed, and he wauled to take them home : then 1 went and got them up and he took them all alon^ but the two youngest. He said he would put Mrs. Earls on the tow path in the i:iormrig, Urs, E. stayed all night, One Sunday I was up at Earls', Mr, #1 Earls Was by, Mrs. E. asked Maria and Sabiiia Moritz into the house-, and then asked Maria what business she had to go a sleigh riding with her man to Northumberland. Maria said she was not along; says .Mrs. E. "you was along—John did not ycu tell me you had her along!" 'Say.s be "no." Says she "you was along.". Maria said "you're a liar." Then, says she, "dont you call me a liar in my own house ;" then Maria ran to the front door and Wanted to get out, and Mrs. Griffin pushed her back, Some of them hand- ed Mrs. Earls a stick and she struck Maria with it. Then Earls catched his wife and 'throw'd her back against the door, and ran to the front doo'r and opened it, and the girls they ran out. He took Mrs, Griffin and kicked her out through the room. Mrs. Griffin and Mrs. Marinus they ran after the * Moritz girls. Then Mrs. Earls got out on the tow path and he catched her and held her, and she picked up a little stick and he left her go, and she ran after them. This last was in the winter—this winter a year ago. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner.—I dont know whether Mrs. Earls caught Maria or not. When Maria wanted to get out Mrs. Griffin stood against the door. The stick Mrs-. E. struck Maria with was about as thick as a broom stick. ^Jie struck her ucross the face. I did not see any blood fly. She struck her once, 1 dont know that she struck her oftener. I tlont know that Earls was in at first, he came before Maria hollowed for help. Mrs. Marinus got to the pump trough first—f went down over the steps, but did not go to the pump. It was after dark ; I think it was a moon- light night. Susan Swenk was there—Susan M'Callaster is her real name I believe. Esther Griffin, sworn—Earls abused his wife at the time she called Ma- ria in from the tow path. Maria would not come in until she saw Earls on the porch. She came in then and Mrs. Earls asked her what business she had to go to Northumberland sleighing with her husband, and staying with him after night. Maria said she did not. Mrs. Earls said she did ; so with that Maria called her a liar. She said if she would caifher a liar again she would strike her. Then Mr. Earls told his wife if she would hurt Maria, ho would hurt her. Mrs. Earls told him to go awav and let her ajone, and not interfere with her, for she Mould whip her. Mr. Earls then took his wife and thre'w her down on the floor in tho kitchen.. 1 stood against the door and Maria wanted to get out; and then he catched hold of me and kicked me out ofthe room ; then they, Maria and her sister, ran down the tow path, Mrs. Earls wanted to follow them, and E. stood on the tow path and held her. I never saw any abuse at any other time. lie used to tell his wife if she could hug and kiss as well as Maria Moritz, he could love her much better than he did. Mrs. F. often asked him, when he was going away, where he was going; he said to Mr. Moritz's-. Siie asked him what ho wua going to do there; and he said to see the pretty girls. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner.—I did not see Mrs; E. strike Maria, but she had a stick hi her hand intending to strike her. I held tho door because I thought Maria deserved a good whipping. I did not over- take Maria, when 1 chased her down tho tow path. Maria ran, I ran, and Mrs. Marinus ran also. M:s. Earls rantcp afler John let her loose, he held ner__she did not overtake Maria". No dogs were put after the girls; wo had none to put after them) unless we had sent Earls. Daniel Griffin, sworn—In 1835, the first day of the year, one of Earls' children and Susan M'Callaster came down and requested me to come u\\ I went up. E iris and his wife had a dispute, and Earls had his wife by the neck with e:;e hr.id and by the shoulder with the other. I tried to get him 53 to let" loose of her'; then he let loose of his wife and eatched me by the coi'■■ lar, and asked me what business I had to interfere. I then told him that he ought not to abuse the woman in the kind of way that he did—he then told me that it was none of my business. While*this happened squire Sechler came in; 1 spoke to him and asked him to speak to Mr. Earls, that it would have more effect than if I spoke. He tapped Earls on the shoulder and spoke to him, but it had no effect. He then catched her and told her if she would not be satisfied, he would put her in the cellar. He catched her by the neck with one hand and under the arm with the other, and dragged her into the cellar, and shut the door on her. 1 remained, at the house about ten or fif- teen minutes. Some time in June or July, I wont be confident which, in the year 1835, I came up to Mr. Earls' and he was in the shantee putting on his shoes. There was a dispute raised betwixt him and Mrs. Earls. He put on his shoes and went out into the kitchen, and picked her up and put her in the cellar. He said befcre that if she would not be still he would put her in the cellar. When he put her in the cellar he locked the door. I have been in that cellar, it is a pretty comfortable one, but middling dark if the door is closed. I never saw him put her there at any other time. I never heard him use any threats. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner.—John was always kind and good to his wife unless she fell at him with some kind of abuse. I live a pretty near neighbor to them; and had a good opportunity of knowing how he treated his wife. For several months before her decease they had not lived upon good terms. On new year's day spoken of, John .had been out shooting.the old year out and the new year in ; he was as much in liquor as I ever saw him. I think he was not in liquor the other time he put his wife in the cellar—cant exactly tell. I was along with him when he went to shoot the old year away. You may call it a kind of a frolic, we had been taking a circle round the country. Re-examined by Counsel for'Commonwealth.—When we went to shoot the old year off, the first place we went to was Mr Ungst's; from there we went to Mr. Moritz's; from there to Mr. Daniel Oyster's; from there to old Mr. Oyster's ; from there to Mr. Mangus'; from there to Christ'n Page's —then we returned home. Cross-examined, again, by Courtsel for Prisoner—We took a drink at every house, if we could get it. Mr. Marinus, Mr. Ungst, and several more, were along with us. Mr. Marinus is a married man ; so is Mr. Ungst. Thev say I have a wife, myself. Mr. E. and I started out about sun down. [The usual hour of adjournment having arrived, the court inquired ofthe counsel .concerned in the cause, whether they insisted upon proceeding on the following day in the trial, it being Sunday. The counsel for the com- monwealth promptly replied they did not insist; and the prisoner, in reply to the inquiry, expressed a willingness to be governed by the wishes of the jury in regard to the matter. The jury, on consultation, desired to leave the question to the decision ofthe court. Whereupon, the court ordered the jury to be kept together, as heretofore, by the two officers already appoint- ed for that purpose, and directed an adjournment until Monday morning, at nine o'clock. Judge Lewis remarked, at the same time, that he did not entertain a doubt that the court'had the power to adjourn over the Sab-" hath day without the consent of either party, and he would take occasion to file an opinion setting forth his reasons for such belief, previous to the clcse of the present Oyer and Terminer.] Adjourned until nine o'clock, on Monday morning. 53 Monday Monniftu, February 8; After the opening ofthe court, the President Judge, in accordance with an intimation given on Saturday evening, famished the following written opinion in support of the decision then made, that the Court of Oyer and Terminer has authority to adjourn over fhe Sabbath day in the trial of a capital case, without the consent of parties ; which was" read and directed to be filed of record. OPINION OF THE COURT Of Oyer and Terminer in relation to adjourning over the Sabbath day. "As the Court have thought proper to decline sitting upon the Sabbath day; during the trial of this cause, in opposition to the practice, in such cases, of Several learned judges, it may not be improper to assign the reasons for the course adopted in this case under the circumstances stated on the record. It is admitted that in very early times', throughout all Christendom, the whole year was one continued term for the hearing and deciding of causes. This was occasioned by a wish on the part of the Christian magistrates to distin- guish themselves from the Heathens', who were extremely superstitious in the observance of days and seasons; and in distinguishing themselves the former went into a contrary extreme and held Court on ail days alike, in- cluding Sundays. Many ofthe return days in England are still fixed upon Sunday, and remain as an evidence ofthe ancient practice. But in point of fact tho court at this period never sits on the Sabbath day. 3 Bl. 276; 3 Thorn. Coke, 35-1; n. I). Register, 19. By a canon of the Church, adopted in A. D. 517, it was declared "Quod nulliis episcopus vel infra positus die dominico cattsas judicare pra>$umat." This, with other canons, forbidding the holding of courts upon the Sabbath day, were received and adopted by the Saxon Kings, confirmed by William, the Conqueror, and Henry II, and so became part of the common law of England, which our ancestors brought with them into this country. 3 Bur. 1595, 8 Cowen, 2*. Lord Coke declares that in the common law there be diesjuridici ann dies nonjuridici, and that the Sabbath day is not a juridical day. 1 Inst. 354. In 1766 a judgment was reversed because it was entered upon the Sabbath day, and that reversal was affirmed in Parliament. The judges were unani- mous. 1 Inst'. 354, n.'S, Z Bur. 1595, 14 Petersd. 759, Dyer, 108, Jones', 156. The construction *of the canon, of 517, as adopted into the common law, was that it prohibited judicial, but not ministerial acts, and therefore, although judicial proceedings could not be had yet an arrest might be made as a ministerial act upon a Sunday. 9 Coke, 66, b. 2 Cro. 227, 7 Com. Dig. title Temps B. 3. p. 399. To remedy the evils of this construction the statute of 29th Charles II, c.7, was passed, which prohibited the serving or executing of any " writ, precept, warrant, order,.judgment or decree, except in treason, felony, and breach of the peace." The reason why this statute is confined to the prohibition of ministerial acts, is correctly stated by Lord Mansfield in 3 Bur. 1595, to wit: that it was needless to restrain the courts from judicial acts on the Sabbath because these were prohibited already by the common law. The statute was intended to restrain the courts from the ministerial acts referred to, except in crises of " treason, felony and breach ofthe peace." The language of our act of 1705, Purdon, 850, is the same with the English statute, and the construction is the same. It is therefore, not the correct construction ofthe act of 1705, that because judicial acts are act prohibited by it they are allowed. They were prohibited before by the 64 common law and remain so still. The receiving of a verdict is not a judicial tvet, nor is it among the ministerial acts prohibited by the act of 1705,which relates only to the service andexeculing of writs and judgments. Necessity and law unite in sanctioning the court in receivinga verdict upen the Sabbath, in order that the jury may be discharged. 15 John. Rep. 119. In the United States vs. Fries, 3 Dal. 515,■ n. the court adjourned without the con- sent ofthe prisoner, on the authority of then recent precedents in England, in the case of King vs. Hardy, and King vs. Tooke. The jury were, how- ever, kept together during the times of adjournment and once (on Sunday) were taken for recreation in a carriage into the country, still^einaining uu-. de'r the charge of the officer. In Getter's trial, the court adjourned from Saturday to Monday. In Mrs. Chapman's trial the same course was adopt- ed. In Commonwealth vs. Huffhagle, et al, the same thing was done, and although a new trial was granted upon another ground, no objection on that ground was sustained. "The sages of the common law teach us that the law of revelation which ' is to be found only in the Holy Scriptures is one ofthe foundations of human laws. I Bl. 2S. And the highest judicial tribunal in the commonwealth has decided that Christianity is part ofthe common law of Pennsylvania, 5 Bin. 55, 11 S. <$c R. 409. In a community professing to found its laws in part upon the Holy Scriptures, and where Christianity is part of the com- mon law, it would be strange in its appearance, and unhappy in its influence upon society, if courts of justice in administering those laws were unneces^ parily forgetful ofthe obligation to ' remember the Sabbath day to keep it iI(>b'-' v ELLIS LEWIS." February 8, 1'838. Christian Page, sworn— This winter a year ago the time that Earls throwed his wife in the water trough, I came there shortly afterwards. I ■went into Solomon Mangus' house, and she was sitting at the kitchen fire crying. 1 did not hear Earls say anything at that or any other time ubout her. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I live about half a mile from Earls' down the canal on the same side of the river. John Green, sworn—I was present at the arrest of Mr. Earls; he was arrested at Mr. MostollerX He said it was nothing more than what he expected. The constable asked him to go along, smd Earls told him not to be i.i a hurry, that he would go along peacably. lie said he was on his way to Mr. Oyster's, and had went tint way to see Mrs. Mosteller, respect- ing a report that was in circulation respecting him—that they had request. ed him to lay his wife's hands on her breast, that they lay too low when ahe was a corpse, which he said was not the case; he said they allowed if he was guilty of the murder, the prints of his fingers would be left on his wife wherever he would touch her. Hogendobler then mentioned to him that the report was in town, as to hint buying the arsenic. He swore he never bought any arsenic, but he bought ratsbane.. He said he would buy it again, and he had a right to do what he pleased with it after he had it. . Hogendobler then cautioned him not to talk in that way, for he would have to be a witness against him. lie- Said then they might take him to jail or to hell*—they might hang him and be d—d to 'em. "Kill me by the Lord, as Johnny Morton says." We then went on to Mr. Mangus', says he " I'lh take a drink, by G—d, I'll have the one I like best, unless they do hang %ne, and I don't care what the hell the people says." He requested us aO 35 to go on and let Hogendobler and him come on behind.* The constable ob, jected to that. He then requested us to divide and let Hogendobler and him go into his own house. When we came to the house we all went in; he sat down the bottle after we went in and we all took a drink, llooen, clobber and Earls' mother and himself went up stairs. After he returned he requested us all to take a drink, and I don't know that any one drank, He then came out at the door,and told his daughter to put the bottle away and lock the door, and let no man in or he would mark her when he came home. \. e then went on to Mr- Callahan's; he went in there ; he was in there a • few minutes, and he came out at the door and started and run ; he run a short piece and was overtaken. He then went on till we came to Mr. Thomas'; he swore there he'd have something to drink, or he'd go no farther. The constable objected to let him have any more drink. He then made an at- tempt to start round the corner of the house; Wendle took hold of him and prevented him from going. He then sat down and swore he would go no further unless they would get some way to haul him. Hogendobler in- sisted on his going on, and he did so; he went on very well from that to Muncy. The next morning he sent a man for Mr. Mangus, his mother and his children. Him and me were sitting in the parlor at Mr. Huffman's when his mother and children came; he went out into the bar room and he met her there ; says she "My God, John, what have you done?" He told her to be still and make no noise there. They then went into a back room; he asked her then whether she had looked at the pint bottle that he had' got full of rum ; he said he thought likely she had taken it in that. The old woman answered him that the bottle of rum was used two or three weeks before Katy was confined, He then requested Mr. Mangus to raise his potatoes', to put them in the cellar, and gel a man to chop wood two ov three days for his mother-^— to take down his stove and put up his mother's i—to take his stove and rent it, and take his clock home to Mr. Mangus'. He said he should take,his vendue list, and get the notes of the different men who had not given them; and that he should collect what he could. I was with him when he was brought to prison. This conversation was be- fore he .was taken before the justices—it was through the day, and he was not taken to the justice's till after dark. [Commonwealth's Counsel here proposed to ask the witness, what was the appearance of the Prisoner when he was arrested, Prisoner's Counsel objected; and the Court decided the question could, not be asked.] John Green, continued—Hogendobler mentioned to him, that him and hia wife had always lived very p-acubly together in Milton—Earls replied, "it is a lie, not to call you a liar, but any body that says so is a liar." He said it was a d----d sight worse bince he left it. He said he had been a bad man and well he knew it; but he was not guilty of the crime he was taken up for. He behaved very well on the road from .Muncy to the prison. There were four of us came from Munsy with him, Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—The Constable (Turner.) Wendle, Dykens and myself, came with him from Muncy to Wiiliamsport ; we came in the stage after night. He was tied by the arms, but not ironed,. lie was not tied until we started from Muncy to bring him to prison. There was Turnar, Wendle, Dykens, Swisher and myself, standing round him when we took him ; be was in the house at the time ; he made no resistance there, It is an open country from Mosttdier's to Mangus'. ft was after night when we got to Muncy; nijht came cm abou: ThamaX—reithcr at Callahan'.* or £t» Thomas'. We qame about three and a half or four miles after night. There is one house from Thomas'to George Edwards'—Mrs. Stratton hvet; in it. it is about a mile from Thomas' and the same from George Edwards'. Part of the way between Stratton's and Edwards' there are ravines and laurels and the ground well.calculated for a man to escape who is so dispo- sed. The tow-path is in some parts high and steep—fiom the dam up to this side of Mr. Thomas' the tow-path is steep. From Mr. Thomas' up, the slope is more easy and gradual, say ten or twelve feet. It would be easv to jump down into the river without danger of breaking limbs. Between Mrs. Stratton's and Edwards' there is a small strip of bottom with ravines putting iii from the hill. There is timber and laurel part of the way near to the tow-path and a part of the way pretty thick woods. Dykens and Earls had a little dispute just after we left his house—there was rio dispute between him and any one else. YVe went up by the out-let locks—from there to Muncy there is an open plain. We took him to Mr. Hoffman's in Muncy. Dykens was present at Hoffman's when Earls' mother and children came there. He was in the back room at the time of the conversation before alluded to, and I think Wendle was in the room at the same time. We wereall with him coming up except Hogendobler, who stayed back with the old woman till we came to Callahan's. Bigger'part of them were in the room when he started to run at Callahan's; I was in the door; Hogendobler #and Swisher were nearest to him; I could not see well, it was dark. Wnight be the-subject of another indictment. It is not competent to prove the corn-mission of one crime on a trial for another—if adultery hW heeri committed by the prisoner, which, said Mr. P. we do not admit, he is subWf to indictment for that crime. But, he enquired, does it follow as a riecessarV consequence that every adulterer is guilty of murder ? Will it be pretend- ed that aZZ who commit adultery are murderers? If so, then he fearefc there were many murderers who pass through this world unknown and unsus- pected. Such a position is repugnant to common sense, and ridiculous in the extreme. Because a man has committed an assault and battery, does i't follow that he has robbed the mail? or, if he has been guilty of larceny* that he has committed high treason? Moreover, the prisoner cannot he called upon in this trial to answer any charge hut that contained in the in^ dictment. If he has been guilty of other violations of the laws—those laws provide a punishment. Mr. P. admitted that the declarations ofthe prisoner shewing estrangement from his wife and attachment to another individual might be introduced ; but nothing further. Any thing which is not in itself a violation of law might be adduced in evidence and he would be silent ; but the moment crime is attempted to be proved, for which the prisoner is not upon his trial, he would raise his voice against it. Murder is perhaps the highest -crime with which a man can be charged ; and the rules of evidence should be strictly applied in cases involving the life of a fellow being- courts should be extremely cautious in admitting testimony of doubtful character. Mr. P. in conclusion, also cited the case of Getter, p. 14, tried £2 Wore Judge MamAky, and enforced the decision made in that case, reject- ing evidence of attachment between the prisoner and a female named Molly Hummer. Mr. Flesino, for the prisoner, also opposed the admission oft he evidence. tie contended that if the fact were established that the prisoner had had criminal intercourse with Maria Moritz, it woiild avail nothing in the pres- ent trial—it would not necessarily follow, that he was estranged from his wife and family, and prepared to conimit the horrid crime of murder. It would prove nothing more'than that he was disposed to gratify his carnal desires, at the expense of his reputation. The crime of adultery has no connection with that of murdVr, and proof of one will be entirely irrelevant on a trial for the other. Mr. F. again referred to the injurious effect which the admission of such testimony must necessarily have upon the character ofa third person, who is not upon her trial, and whose mouth is sealed in the present investigation. lie hoped this court would not suffer the reputation of an individual, against whom no charge had been preferred, to be forever blasted, in a judicial proceeding, where that individual was not a party. Mr. Armstrong, in reply, stated that the trial of Getter, which had been referred to by the counsel for the prisoner, is not precisely in point. There the offer was to show the gradual increase of crime, that one crime led to another, and that because he was an adulterer, he might have been a murderer. In this view, perhaps it was-properly rejected. But I cannot, said Mr. A. asseut to the opinion of Judge MALufi'ir that, because the propo- sition might involve the character of an individual not on trial, therefore it should be rejected. Every indictment for fornication or adultery, may in- volve the chaYflcter ofa person not on trial. So of Conspiracies—the char- acters of persons not on trial may be involved. There could be no objection on an indictment for larceny, to proof that a burglary had been commit- ted, to enable the defendant to steal—or that, a person not on trial had assist- ed in it—although it would b? a crime of higher grade. In the case before the court, it cannot be said that-the evidence offered, has no connection with the charge against the prisoner. If it has the slightest tendency to prove motive or inducement to the crime, it ought to be received. The declarations of Earls have been already admitted. Acts are stronger than declarations, and would it not "he strange, indeed, that as the evidence of motive increased, the propriety pf its admission should be diminished? Mr. Camimjell also rose in support ofthe offer, hut the Court intimated that it was unnecessary, and remarked, that if the counsel for the prisoner had any thing further to say, they would be heard. Mr. Ellis, for the prisoner, then rose-, and stated that after the most ma- ture deliberation, and with due deference to the opinion of the court, he felt bound to differ from that opinion as just intimated. We have all learn- ed, said Mr- E. around this bar, and in all the halls of justice in'which we .have practised, that a prisoner must be tried upon the indictment, and on that alone—the crime must be set cut with absolute certainty. We must confine ourselves within the record. Is scandal to be raked up to prejudice this jury? and is the prisoner to be tried for his life upon the slanders of an excited populace ? We are not permitted to wander—we can- not trample upon the rules and monitions of law. Courts of justice should be pure, purer than gold seven times tried ; they must surround themselves with all the learning, the decisions, and the experience of the past. What right have this court to sit here, and hear evidence of a crime with which the prisoner has not been charged; and a third person convicted of a crims* f»3 without a-hearing? That person is one of the commonwealth's own wit. nesses and shall she be stigmatized and disgraced before her testimony j, ottered ; and for an offence for which she is liable to a separate indictment ?' lne gentlemen upon the other side, who represent the commonwealth, I consider as standing in the peculiar relation of guardians of the public mo- rals ; ano is this the way they guard them? As well might they invade every fireside ,n the neighborhood, and publicly in thu? hall proclaim ThJV. t ?r°^ Sc°7, Wl,liGh bUSy mm0V mdy haVe set a3oat> a»d thus blast the reputation of all who come within their reach. John Earls comes into court, clothed with all, the rights and immunities which beW to every citizen in this commonwealth, and claiming a trial upon the specific charges which have been brought against him by-the grand inquest ot his country—he is prepared to meet those charges; but, enquired Mr. E had that inquest m their finding averred that he was guilty of adultery 1-1 iiave they put him upon his trial for that offence; a crime atrocious in its character, and severely punished by our laws ? They have not—and the pri- soner cannot now be called upon to answer for an offence which is thus with- out a moment's notice, or the least time for preparation, attempted to be press- ed upon him, Such a course would be at variance with the rules of evi- dence and all the principles of the common law ; and surely, said Mr. E, this court will not sanction so gross a departure from principles rendered sacred by the practice of the past, and which are the only safe guides to the correct administration of justice for the future. Mr. E. concluded by an earnest remonstrance against the adoption of a rule in this case, which the court might hereafter have cause to regret. Per Curiam—We have heard this question argued with great zeal, by the prisoner's counsel. -We concur with them that it would be darmerous to depart from the rule ofthe common law. It is the rule upon which the consciences of Judges may rest with safety. Accordingly we found our decision upon the rule ofthe common law. All facts are admissible in evi, dence which are in their nature capable of affording a reasonable inference as to the disputed fact, 2 Starkie, 380. On the other hand, remote and collateral facts, from which no reasonable inference can be drawn, are in- admissible. Collateral facts are admissive to prove intention, malice, or guilty knowledge, Ib. 381. And it is not, as contended, an objection to such proof that it involves proof of a crime not charged, In an indictment for passing counterfeit coin, evidence of passing other counterfeit Coin than that charged is admissible to show the motive and knowledge of the pri- soner ; and the same practice prevails in indictments for uttering counter- feit notes, 2 Starkie, 581, 378, 379. Proof may be given that a party was influenced by a strong motive of interest, I Starkie, 492, or shame, 1 Starkie, 492. In infanticide, proof that the child was illegitimate, although such proof necessarily involve proof of the guilt of the parent, is evidence to show that the motive for the act was to avoid the shame of detection. So in murder ofa female, proof may be given that she was pregnant to the party charged, and for the same reason, Ryon, 267. This was peimitted to be done in Dauphin county, in M'Elhennfs case, before Judge Franks. In Getter's case, proof was given that he had been forced to marry thade- ceased by reason of a charge of fornication and ' bastardy ; and proof was nlso given of intimacy with, and attachment, to, another woman. In Mrs. Chapman's case, evidence was given of intimacy .with Mine, even in his bed-room. It is true, as a general rule, that one crime is not evidence of smother, and that adultery i= not evidence of mprtjer." If an isolated fact of ». ftduitc.y were offered for such a purpose, it would be rejected, as. was dune by Judge M.vllary, in Getter's trial. But where the evidence offered i? necessarily connected with, and forms a motive for, the commission of the crime charged, it is not a sufficient objection to the testimony, that the evi- dence may tend to show the prisoner guilty of another oflence in addition to the one charged. It is a general rule that where crimes intermingle, and one is cvideuce to prove another, the court must go through the whole, 2 Starkie, 879. Distinct utteiings of counterfeit notes, of counterfeit coin, distinct burglaries and separate attempts at robbery have been given in evi- denee to show the scienter, 2 i~!' have had difficulty with Maiia Moritz ; but did not watch her in consequence of that. The difficulty occurred before that night a long time. I lived about half a mile from Mull's, with Geo. Lilly. I did not state, before the justices how long Maria had been in the stable. I did not swear that she was there an hour. I dont recollect that 1 swore that it was more than an hour before the re- turned from the stable to the house. I did not speak to Earls that night— I heard him speaking to Maria. After he went into the house he said " good evening"—to whom I dont know. I swore about the clock striking eleven at the squires'—I said it struck eleven when they went into the house. I .did.not go into the house at all. The paper was down and I could not see in at the window ; I tried. I did not tell this story to any body until I told it at Muncy. I was not subpoenaed the first time I went to Muncy—George Lilly told me I should go there. I told Keyeer, the man that was with me the second night, part of this but not all. I was standing close by the sta- ble the second time when I heard them whispering; it Was moonlight. I dont know exactly that it was Maria that time, but I suspected it was by her voice. I cant swear it was her. The man that jumped down at the gable end walked off towards Mr. Earls*. I went home—this was perhaps eight, nine or ten o'clock, on Sunday evening. We went there that time because we had seen Earls going in that direction. John Shuman, sworn—I met Mr. Earls at Baltzar Garnhart's barn, go- ing on his way to Moritz's. He asked me whether I could go down the river with him with an ark. He told me he would go on out to Moritz's, but I should not tell any body. Then I went on out to singing school, and stayed till singing was over. When I came back to Moritz's, where I board ed, they were all in bed, and so was he (Mr. Earls.) I went to bed to him where he lay; both of us laid there until he thought I was asleep, then he went out of my bed and went into the room where the girls slept; and he stayed there until betweeu three and four o'clock next morning. Then he y.^ came out.and told me I must get up, for it was time to start off. This was on Sunday morning! I got up and went into the room and asked for my clothes. "I came out again after 1 had them, and directly Maria came out too, into tue room where I was dressing. John was standing close by, and told her there under the pillow (where I slept) is some rrtoney, and you can get it. She told him if there is any there, when you come back I will give if to you again. So we came up to Muncy landing andvsfarted down the river with our ark that morning. Earls came there another time and took old Mr. Moritz and \Xria down to Milto%in a sleigh. ..They stayed that dav and next night until about break of day next morning. This was last winter near about this time. The time he slept at Moritz'a was last spring in March or April. Last winter they had a law suit, up at Stratton's. ff Daniel Doubt and myself and Mr?. Mowrey arid Maria-Moritz started off A- I " V.4-* 66 f t&> @om& down from Stratton's. John Earls overtook u« between Stsatteft'a; and Doubt's, and took Maria Moritz in with him. He would let nobody else in with him until he came to Doubt's and there he ;ook in old Mr, Mo- ritz. They went down to the bridge at Mangus', and he left Maria out and she ran up to the cross road that runs towards Muncy. He had to put the fence down to get,his sleigh across, and there his wife met him, and took hold of the horse's bridle and kept hold of it up to the water trough at Man- gus'. There he catched hold of his wife and put her down in the water trough like, and took his hand and throwed water up in her face ; he tore her clothes and had her wet all over, so she had to get other ones to put on. He bent her down just over the trough and did not put her in at all as I saw. I was standing by and saw the whole of it. Mrs. Marinus came up to him, 1 dont know what she done, but he left his wife and run into the house after her. I afterwards stayed at Earis' once all night, and they seemed peacea-" ble enough and did net scold. '■ - * Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner-*- When I met Earls the night. ofthe singing school he had a horse. 'We left Moritz's between three and ^ four o'clock. The horse was taken out of the stable that night. He did not state to mo that he had,been out in search of his horse. Pie was not down stairs before he wakened me up—after he wakened me up he went up to the" stable, and then he came back and told me his horse had been taken out of the stable. We came from singing school a. little after nine o'clock, Sabina Moritz was along. I slept up stairs—1 heard Sabina go up to bed after I went to bed. John Earls was in bed with me when Sabina went up to bed. Maria was in bed before I got home, Henrietta, I rather think, was not at home—I caut tell. I had boarded at Moritz's about two months aud a half at that time. I knew where Maria and Sabina sWpt—they each slept in a different bed, but in the same room. They did not sleep together •r^-I know, because I saw it myself, When Henrietta was at home, she generally slept with one of the rest. I heard Sabina go in the bed that stood against the partition, where my bed stood against on the opposite side, John did not say how much money was under the piilow. Maria said if she found^my she would give it back to him when he returned. I had my clothes part on when Maria came out—rshe had hers on. 1 did not hear John Earls say wdiat he left the money for. Old Mr. Morits and his wife slept down in the stove room that night Where they always do. There are two cham- bers up stairs. Sabina went through the same room where I slept to get to bed. There was no lock to the door, I am sure of that, nothing but the latWi, I had opened it often, for I slept in that room myself. I slept in that room when the girls were in it, but not in the same bed. Maria'slept in one bed, *• .Sabina and Henrietta in another, and I in the other. When I slept in the girls' room, no person slept in the other-—it was warmer in their room. I never took a candle, I could find the road without. I had no candle the night Earls was there. Earls did not tell me he slept in the girls' room ; I saw him go in. I eould see him walking along, it was just middling dark. I did not sleep right away—I slept some, bat not so much as 1 would ha*pe done, if he had not been*there. I was going to school, and did morning's and evening's work for rhy bo^rd. It was eitherjn March or April that John came th.&re."" I went wTith John to look for his horse, out in the fields, but did not find him,'. We, run the ark for Mr. Monroe, it is about seven - miles from Moritz's to.Pennsb#rOugh [Muncy]—we got to Pennsborough ;<, little after smi ris\u Earls rioted the ark. |t is about two mites from "Mo,, iitXs to Earls', ' $ - '' ■ ~dy i%' *? .'■ -OW&- m %t* examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—We went from Moritz*. to Muncy by the canal, down past Mangus'. Mary Ann Earls, called again—Mamma went to Milton one Saturday Evening; George Stine took her. Pap promised to go down for her ok Monday. I cant mind if he went down for her on Monday or not. Me and Maria Moritz we slept together in one room, and pap he slept in the other. About twelve o'clock Maria she got up. I am not right sure that she went to bed to pap or not. She went down stairs,—I heard her lifting the latch tip. I dont know whether she was out doors or not. That's all I know. My father slept in the front room, and we slept in the back room. Maria came back to bod to me about four o'clock. I did not liear any person call pap after Maria went out of the room. [The court here intimated that this testimony was improperly admitted^ •and that had they been aware of its character it should not have gone to the jury.] Eliza Grieb, Sworn—I have often seen Earls at Moritz's. I saw Maria one morning when I came over, at Mr. Earls' chair, and he says "dear Maria, what had you and the old woman yesterday ?" She said, "not much." I came out of the door ana went home. He catched her round the neck, tind hug'd her and kiss'd her. This was last vinter sometime. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner'-—Mr. Earls, Maria and myself were by and no one else. This was in Mr. Moritz's kitchen. Mrs. Moritx was in the room. Dont know where Sabina was; I think she was at school. Henrietta was not there. I think old Mr. Moritz was in the room. Dont think this was on new year's day, I live within a quarter of a mile of Moritz's. Maria said nothing when he hug'd and kiss'd her. He would not have got the chance to kiss another lady there. I have seen hugging and kissing before often. This was batween breakfast and dinner. John came from home that day; it was after Christmas about this time in the year. I was examined at Pennsborough. I never had any difficulty with Maria. I was married ; I am single now ; my husband* is not dead. Hugh Donley, Jr.-sworn—Some time last May, I was at Patrick Calla- han's all night, at Muncy dam. I got up about three o'clock, before day, and went down to Sechler's lock. Between the dam and lock I met John Earls and Maria Moritz. 1 went down to the lock and stayed there a little while and came back to the dam and stopped there a spell—it was the day the show was at Muncy, [the exhibition of wild animals.] I started from the dam up to Muncy, and about two miles above the dam 1 looked up the hill, and I saw Maria Moritz standing there combing her hair, I went on a piece and looked around and saw a man coming out of the woods below, that I took to be John Earls. The day that John Earls was taken, 1 heard him say that he had bought ratsbane, but he never gave Katy any. He said he loved Maria Moritz, and he did not care a d----n who know'd it. It wea before day when I first met them—I got up about three o'clock—it was about sunrise when I saw Maria afterwards. It was about the middle of yixv__it was the day of the big show at all events. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I was about six hundred yards from him when I saw the man I took to be Earls. He had just come out o^the woods, and I saw him oil the tow,path. Etbink he had the same rlothes on he has now. I heard Earls' conversation, as stated, Rear Lins- ley's locks, as I was passing him as they were taking him up to Muncy. ft was about three-fourths of a mile from Earls' ewn house to where I met-bo? 68 with Maria ;.th3 moon was shining; he was going up the tow path. I think Jake Swisher was by whan he told about loving Maria and about the rats-. bane—it was after dark. Re-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—Earls' house is below the lock house, in Muncy Creek township, Lycoming county. The counsel for the Commonwealth here stated that Christiana Earls, a witness previously examined, desired to make some further statements. The prisoner's corneal objected, allying that the woman was old and in- firm, and easily operated uoon by th? excitement which pervaded the public mind. The Court directed the witness to be called, and remarked that she should be asked no questions. Mrs. Earls not being in the Court-house, when called, the Counsel for the Commonwealth announced that they would here closo the testimony for the prosecution. Mr. Parsons opened the case for the prisoner as follows :— May it please your Honours— Gentlemen ofthe Jury : After a tedious examination of witnesses for six days, we have it announced by the learned gentleman, who conduct this cause on the part ofthe com- monwealth, that their testimony is closed; I rejoice at the patience which has been manifested, by the intelligent jury which I this day have the honour of addressing, and the untiring attention with which they have listened to all the evidence that has been adduced by the commonwealth. On behalf of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar, we have to call upon you for a further exhibition of your patience, and a continued devotion of your at- tention, to testimony that may be brought for your consideration, by the de- fendant, in this indictment. 1 ask but a faithful hearing for my client, and a full investigation of his case, for on. that hangs all his future prospects in this life. Your verdict will unloose the chains that now bind him; break assunder the bolts and bars which now close his prison doors, and open wide, the gates of the gloomy dungeon, which for months has been his habitation, and set him free; or it wi 11 rivet closer those chains ; fasten fir r>er those bars and bolts; close tighter the prison doors, and consign him to the gallows. Indulge me, gentlemen ofthe jury, while I caution you against those impressions, or pre- judices, which may have honestly, and perhaps imperceptibly, crept into your minds, in relation to this cause, before you were empannelled in that box; for I say to you, that a cloud of nrejudice more blighting than a mil- dew upa'i the vegetable wodd, has lowered upon this man's cause, and seems to blast all hopr? ofa fair trial, unless your minds remain pure, and untaint- ed. There is no perfection in this world ; ws. are but human nature, and liable to human prejudices, and those too often unperceived creep into the purest heart, and undermine the strongest judgment; hence the necessity of fortifying the mind against its insidious attacks. I was much pleased with the remark made to you by the Court, in the early part of this trial, " that when tho jurv iom'! into the box, their minds should be like a sheet of white pnoer." No impressions should rn permitted to reign in your minds, but those created by the evidence. We ask of you in this investiga- tion, to discriminate between'tbe crime of murder, and other crimes with which the prisoner has been charged, bv the counsel for the prosecution, and of which thev allege he is jjuiltv. We do not, as counsel for th^ prison- er, justify all his conduct, as disclosed by the evidence already before you. Misconduct towards his wife was brutal and barharous; and I stand np^ 69 here to palliate or deny it. It is said that his afieationa were estranged from his wife, that he left tha sacred and hallowed rights of matrimonial life, and with the lurid fire of guilty passion, sought the adulterous pleasures of another. I do not justify such an act, but we sav to you this is not homi* cide ; it is not the crime you are called upon to try. I ask you to divesj your minds of any prejudices, that may have arisen there against the prison er in consequence of evidence admitted on those points. We resisted that evidence, but the Court overruled our objections, and we bow with hurnbld suiniih-iion to their decision. But although that evidence was admitted hy the Court, to show a motive, for the commission of a crime—it does not establish the crhne of homicide., with which he is charged in this indictment. It will be the duty of this jury to discriminate between the motive, and tho crime, with which he is charged. The principles of law and evidence, on which we rely for the defence of our unfortunate client, it is my duty to state to you in these remarks. The commonwealth asks not the blood of any of her citizens, unless the evidence clearly warrants it. We have examined the testimony now before you, and shall rely upon that principle of law which requires that the guilt ofthe prisoner be*indubitably established by the prosecution—and we say that this does not establish his tjaiilt—and that it has not been proved. The law pre- sumes him innocent, till his guilt is fully proved. We shall shslterour client under those immutable principles of law, which form a complete and perfect shield to him—rand protect him from the dark imputations cast upon his prospects, by the array of circumstances brought against him. Upon con- sultation with my colleagues, I say to you, gentlemen of the jury, as I stand in the presence of this Gouit, if we were in the place of that prisoner, we would not call a single witness to rebut any thing produced by the common- wealth ; there is nothing but circumstantial testimony, which may all be true and still the defendant perfectly innocent. I should not have said that we would not call a witness were we in the place of the defendant, if we were not fully aware ofthe law ofthe land, that must govern in this case, and which will be read to you at a proper time. Permit me to say at this time, that in order to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be inconsistent with the prisoner's innocence. But we must pursue a different course in defence of this unfortunate man—he is un- skilled in the science of our profession, and unacquainted with the rules of law—he relies upon the consciousness of his own innocence. John Earls has no friend to take his part in this trying hour, or act for him in this mo- mentous scene, save here and there a weeping little child, who hovers round the criminal box, where their still dear but unfortunate and ill fated father is confinedT—there is none to stem for him the current of public opinion, and popular prejudice, which for months has been rapidly rolling against him, nor no one to repel the infamous falsehoods, which slander with its thousand blasting tongues has been spreading on the winds of heaven against him. He has been for four dreary months immured within the walls of the prison, none to select his witnesses, none but the officers of the law, to summon them; but with all these obstacles to encounter, we will adduce testimony which will clear away this mist and prejudice, and repel this attempt at conviction on circumstantial evidence of doubtful character. We do not concede the p'dnt that Catharine Earls died from poison ; if is a faet for the prosecution fully to prove. We will refer the Court, and yon, gentlemen of the jury, to a number of the most respectable medical anthori.-. $ies, in relation to death by arsenic, and its detection in the stomach, by yo fcfeemicral teste. Vfe make no reflection upon the intelligent scientific ger? tlamen, who have been examined in this cause, in relation to the post mortem examination, and the chemical tests applied to the contents of the stomach of the deceased ; it will be tor this jury to say, whether the deceased came to her death by poison or not. But admitting that she died of arsenic, it will be tor the commonwealth to fix upon the criminal agent; does it follow that the prisoner has done the act? It is not for us to say who has bees guilty of the crime; we shall present the facts fully before you, and leave the jury to draw their own inferences as to the guilty agent. We will prove to this jury, that years ago the woman who it is alleged has been consigned to the grave by my client, and who has gone to that bar where Ave must all one day appear, shortly after her marriage with the'pri- soner imbibed habits of intoxication. We will show that her general charac- ter was that of an intemperate woman. I would most devoutly wish that I «night b9 spared these remarks, for I am aware that we ought to "tread Sightly o'er the ashes of the dead." But when the interests of my client require this exposure, it is not for counsel to shrink from a faithful discharge ©f duty. For awhile she refrained from a free indulgence in the use of ar- dent spirits. About two years ago the prisoner and his family removed to Muncy dam. She soon resumed her intemperate habits—soon she became jealous of her husband. Whether the "green eyed monster" was seen through the reflection of the bottle, or whether she bad a real cause for these dark suspicions in which she indulged of her husband's honor, is not for me to fcay, but will b« for your consideration. We will prove to you that for some week* before her confinement, she spoke of it as- terminating her 'earthly existence—that she said she would not live beyond that period. iShe oh one occasion remarked that she would not live long after her child was born ; and toV>ne person she said " that before one week passes by after fny child is born, you will hear that I am dead." Unfortunately for my cli- ent, that confinement was her last, and her gloomy predictions were fulfilled. We will prove to ^ou that on more than one occasion a few weeks before the was confined, Mrs. EarlR, the deceased, told some of her friends and ac- quaintance* as she was parting with "them, that she would never see them 'again, that she had not long id live, In conversing with an old neighbor ifrom Milton, she told him she would never see that place again. He en- quired the reason, nnd she told him that her approaching confinement would tend her life. Some weeks before her dissolution, she gave to her eldest daughter a dress that had been purchased for herself, stating that she would tiot want it, and that it was the last dress she would ever give her. The deceased about the same time purchased a dress for a younger daughter-, stating that it would be the last the little girl would receive from her moth- er. We will show to you that Mrs. Earls on more occasions than one wish- ed herself dead, and declared that she hoped John would have his neck stretched for it. We-will also prove that she threatened her own destruc- tion by means of poison, and that she would die by the taking of it; and that too, at the period when she was confined. In addition to this we will show to you a variety of other facts and circumstances which strongly go to show that the deceased was bent on self-destruction. Testimony will be introduced on the part of the prisoner, to rebut many ofthe prominent facts and circumstances which are relied upon as evidence of guilt by the prosecution. We will show that as <*arly as 1827, he pur- chased arsi'?vc for the purpose of destroying the minks which devoured fh£ ihh cacght in his baskets. We wHI-prove that a few weeks before the deati 71 «*f hi« wife, he purchased the same artiak, and for the sawe puypse, »ftd that the prisoner used the arse-trie purchased at Muncy on the day of tha election, before the sickness or death of his wife, by putting it on a dead fish at his basket which had been partly devoured by the minks. We will show that other fishermen along the river have used it in the same way, so that any unfavorable inference which might be drawn from the circumstance of the purchase of poison by the pfisoner will be fully explained. We will show that the witnesses for the Commonwealth are mistaken in what they have sworn about any threats made by the prisoner against the deceased; that if the defendant put his wife in the cellar, it was when she was intox* " icated; and that all which has been sworn about his intercourse with Maria Moritz, that he was in bed with her as sworn to by John Shuman, or with her in the stable as asserted by Garnhart, was sheer fabrication. This, gentlemen ofthe jury, is but a brief outline of our defence, and but a few of the vast variety of circumstances which we will introduce in defence of our much persecuted but innocent client. It has been asserted by the counsel for the prosecution, that the prisoner viewed the dissolution of his wife with indifference, and remained like a "marble statue" jnmoved by the'hfflieting scene. But we will show that all the forms of funeral rites and ceremonies known in the place where he lived were strictly observed—that a highly respectable clergyman attended at the house, preached a funeral sermon at the church, and aided the atiiicted family in performing the last kind offices due to a departed relative—that so far from being like the unfeeling " mar- ble" he might bfetter be compared to the weeping willow; for whh his little children around him he took a last fare'well ofthe remains of his departed wife, after they were enveloped in the icy coffin, soon to be inurned in the still colder grave, with his eyes bathed in tears, mingling his sobs and crieg with his fond little ones who we;e mourning over the corse of their lament- ed mother. All that kindness and humanity could dictate was performed by him after her decease. His counsel, from a daily intercourse with him, minutely observing every act, and strictly watching every word,-are as well convinced of his inno- cence, as of that of^my person in this court house. And although conscious, ofthe inconvenience of this jury, being confined as you are in this box, and separated from ail society when you retire from it; yet we doubt not you will cheerfully listen to ail we have to say, and with pleasure set the piisonet free. Adjourned till nine o'clock tQ:roorrow morning. Tuesday Morning, February 9. The Counsel for the Prisoner called John S. Carter, affirmed—I keep an apothecary shop in Northumber- land. About the first of October"las* a person called on me and enquired for some anise seed oil and asafectida. He told me he used them in fishing. I asked him a number of questions relative tD the manner of using them and where he fished. He told mo lie fished up near Watyonstown. i enquired something about his success in fishing—he rjeplied that the minks or musk- rats had got to preying upon his fish at nights in -his basket, and he thought I,, otio-ht to get some arsenic or ratsbane and see if he could not kill them. lie asked for a fi'penny-bit's worth. 1 got the bottle down and gave him, that amount. The person alluded to was the prisoner at the bar. I took, •Kjiiiculur notice ofthe man and ic marked his clothing; and recognised hiu. 7& at last court at the jail. We do not make a practice of selling arsenic te Rvery person, unless sufficiently acquainted, without something occurs to re- move suspicion. The reason I gave it to Earls was his enquiring for the other articles first, and the reason he gave for using it. I had no hesitation in giving it to him. We generally give one-fourth of an ounce for a fi'pem ny-bit. I did not weigh it—I gave it to him on the point ofa knife. He jmt two drachms as near as I could guess. The article is quite heavy, I tmnt recollect its specific gravity. What 1 sold Earls would lay on the point r>f a common case knife. A common tea-spoonful would be rather more than a drachm. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—There are four hundred and eighty grains in an ounce—sixteen grains in a drachm. It was about the first of October—the first week. I had been sick and got to the shop 0:1 the first, and left it the fourteenth; it was between those dates. We rare- ly use colored paper in wrapping up articles; we use white drug paper, and always put arsenic up in two or three papers to avoid accidents. William R. Wilson, affirmed—I lived with Patton & Bright in Milton ; they kept an apothecary, dry goods and hardware store. I knew John Earls when I lived there ; he called on me frequently and got the oil of anise seed, asafbetida and arsenic. I dont recollect how often, several times I sold it to him. He told me he used the asafoetida and anise seed, for catching fish. I asked him if he made use of arsenic also to catch fish—ha said not; that he used it to destroy minks or muskrats,. I dont remember^ which, I rather think minks, that were in the habit of cutting his nets and taking his fish—destroyed His fish frequently in his nets and baskets. This was in the spring and fall of 1827. I have been out fishing with him, he lived in ?dilton at the time. I have seen him prepare it and put it in his basket. He put the arsenic on meat and put it into the basket. He fished then about the islands near Milton—Vincent's and Moodie's islands. Earls was a boatman ; he went down on arks in the spring ofthe year. He was a pilot on the river. He was a fisherman. I have seen him boating—he managed a river boat before the canal was made. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—I left Milton in the spring of 182,-', and have known but little of Earls sinc^. I have seen him at the head of the line with canal boats. I never saw any minks destroyed, nor muskrats, with the arsenic. I have seen minks about Vincent's and JMoodie's islands. Re-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—Arsenic is sold as ratsbane, by the apothecaries to kill rats. I never saw any rats that were killed by the arsenic. tiamucl Earls, called—[Prisoners son.] Being examined in relation to his competency the witness stated:—"I am going on eleven years old. I know about the oath I am going to take. If you swear to a lie you will go to hell. Nobody told me; 1 heard it myself. I heard it c good while ago. Father never taught me so. I heard people say it." Witness sworn—The day pap was in the bar-room he said we should go nlong up to the basket. Then we was in the bar-room and went down to the liver with the basket for lamprdy eels. Then we went on up to the basket. Then he swung the canoe and tied her, wdien we got up to the basket. Then he got into the fish basket and there was a fish there that the minks had eat bis head off. Then lie sat clown in the hind end ofthe basket. Then he told 10? to hand that fish to him.• Then I did. Then he took a paper out of his pocket. Then lie imlapped it; there was two papers, and he put some ■rs .white stuff in the fish, and told me to lay it in under the second fall. Then J did. Then he throwed the papers in the river. I asked him what he put it in for. He told me to kill the minks, they come and take the fish off so. Then he throwed the papers into the river, and John wanted to catch them. Pap told him to leave them go. He said the minks took the fish off so and hid them, he said he wanted to give them a dose. Then he untied the canoe. Then we went on down home. We met old Mrs. Callahan on the roadl We could just see that it was getting dusk when we got home. It was the day before main died. I went to Mangus' with Livy Sechler after mother died. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—Mother died about four o'clock in the morning ; it was the day before that we went to the basket. There was no fish but that one in the basket. The colour of the paper papa untied at the basket was white and red. We had caught no fish for several days in the basket; it was not because the water was too low. We caught the last fish two or three days before that. My brother John was with us; he is younger than me. John asked me what it was for after I asked pap. The sucker was lying there from the night before. I did not eat my dinner before we went up to the dam ; we did not have any dinner; we eat apiece. They were getting dinner when we started ; grandmother was boiling some meat for dinner. She was cookipg chocolate. The river was not very high nor'very low—the water was running over the fall board when we went there. I have not-been examined before. I told this story to Mr. Parsons and that man, [pointing to Mr. Ellis,] that was up in the jail before. Papa said 1 should hand him the fish, and did not say nothing at all about it. He put it in the inside of the sucker. I never stated that the river was so low we could not catch fish for three or four -days before. I have not stated the water was so low it would not come over the fall hoard. .Father never killed any minks there with poison as I know of. I never saw any minka there. I dont know how old my brother is. There are twelve days in a month, I believe. [Mr, Ellis, for the prisoner, here objected to questions of this character being put to the witness on account of his extreme youth, and his limited means cf information. The Court referred to the fact, that they were very nearly, if not quite, the same questions that were propounded by the gentle- man himself, to one ofthe Commonwealth's witnesses on her cross-examin- ation, and intimated that there ought hot to be any objection.' Mr. Ellic observed that the cases were widely different. The case referred to by the Court was that of Susan Earls, who had gone on for some time talking of weeks and months and seasons as fluently as if she had been of mature age. Those questions were asked her for the purpose of testing her know- ledge of time and other matters of which she had been talking so freely. In this instance, the witness had attempted nothing of the kind, and it would be improper to cross-examine him in relation to a subject on which he had said nothing in his examination in chief. It was plainly evident, said Mr. E., that Susan had been schooled into her sjtory; that she was the little alembic into which all the scandal of the country had been thrown, and there concocted and reproduced with tenfold bitterness and venom. The result has been clearly manifested by her conduct during the progress of this trial; totally estranged from every kind- feeling and affection towards her father, she has perverted the laws of nature; for, said Mr. E., it is an ele- mentary principle, written by Aimighty God deep upon the human heart 3 74 that the ehild shall love its parent. The Cowht- overruled the objcc'rie»s?v and suffered the questions to be asked.] Witness proceeded—There are six days in a week. There are twelve weeks in a month. I can read. I saw father put poison into a fish before.. He put it into a market basket where he had some bait fish, and the minks came and upset the basket and got them out. This was two or three months. before. The poison I saw pap put into the fish was wrap't up in one paper and another paper over that.. It was all put in the fish. I dont know where he got the poison before he went to the basket. He said it was ratsbane. Grandmother wanted us to stay and get dinner before we went. He said he wanted to hurry up and get lamprey eels, and then he would come down and get supper. Pap gave us our pieces; we got bread and butter. We got the lamprey eels up at the point ofthe island over from the fish basket. John and me helped to push going up. Supper was ready when we got down. We crossed over from the fish basket to get the lamprey eels, and then come straight down—-we got lamprey eels with a shovel. One tea- spoonful I guess it was pap put into the fish. The time he put it into th« backet it was two times the point of his pen knife full. There was a stone in the basket and he laid the poison round it. Re-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—There were three falls in the fish basket; the water run over only the one tall board at the time. Cross-examined, again, by Counsel for Commonwealth—I stay at the jaii with my father. I have stayed there all the court. Examined, again, by Counsel for Prisoner—I am locked up with my fa- ther at night. I stay here by him in the day time, in the court house. I sleep with him. Daniel Doubt, sworn— [The counsel for the prisoner proposed to prove by this witness the de- clarations of the prisoner in relation to being troubled with minks and muskrats at his fish baskets, and his intention to destroy them with poison. The counsel for the commonwealth objected to the admission of the testi- mony ; and contended that the declarations ofthe prisoner, unaccompanied ■with acts, could not be given in evidence by himself in his own defence. The Court sustained the objection, and at the same time remarked that if such declarations were offered in connection with the acts of the prisoner to which they had reference, the^ would perhaps be proper evidence to go to the jury.] Witness proceeded—I saw Earls catching bait fish about the first of Oc- tober last; he sat in his canoe. I just happened to come there while he was fishing. I did not join with him in fishing ; I stood by ; he was catch- ing chubs with a hook and line. He told me he wanted them for bait fish ; he was then preparing for fishing. I saw him putting out his out-lines and baiting them, and also going to his fish basket, [Mr, Ellis here submitted to the court whether the declarations of the prisoner, made at the time to which the witness has alluded, and in connec- tion with the acts he has already proved, might not properly be adduced in evidence, The counsel for the commonwealth again objected; but a ma- ;otity of the Court decided that the^ testimony should be admitted.] Witness proceeded—Refore he went to his fish basket, I asked h'<^ how be was doing with his fishing, and said I suppose you are making money • Uli scrips, *'£?o, sir, says he, J am just about making a living; the. i)Ir, >5 tnihkg are troubling my fish basket, but some of these days I will aet a Tsaix for them that will stop them from troubling it hereafter." He went and set ■his out line and afterwards 1 saw him going to his fish basket. I have lived for a year past, as near as I can tell, about a mile and a half above Earls', on the tow path. I have frequently been at Earls', and through the past sum- mer was there every week once or twice. I have not seen much ill treating. One time I saw her standing in the door scolding him, and he said to her "it is enough of that, shut up now," and with that she went into the house* I cant tell whether she was intemperate Or otherwise. [Mr. Parsons, for the prisoner, proposed to ask the witness what was the general reputation of Mrs. Earls for temperance. k Mr. Armstrong, for the commonwealth objected intoto to evidence of Mrs. Earls' reputation ; he cared not what were "her habits, had the prisoner on that account a right to murder her ? He ought to be the last to disturb the repose of the deceased ; and unless he pleads "gimlty with leave to justi- fy," the evidence is inadmissible. Mr. A. at the same time remarked that they did not fear any investigation ofthe character of Mrs. Earls, but if the Court decided it relevant, would willingly go into that subject and show that the imputations attempted to be cast upon her were without the slightest "foundation. Mr. Parsons replied, that the commonwealth have attempted to, prove that the prisoner had grossly abused and ill treated his wife ; and the object of the present offer is" to show the provocation—it is a part ofthe same trans- 'action which they have given in evidence, and in this view he contended the testimony was pertinent, and ought to be admitted. The Court ruled that the general reputation ofthe deceased could not be enquired into at present, if at all; 'but any distinct facts in relation to her -conduct might be shown.] Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—I have been acquainted with Earls and his wife, back and forward since they moved to that place, I have often seen Mrs. Earls, but never saw her intoxicated. Mary Swartz, sworn—I was very well acquainted with John Earls and his wife, in Milton. They were good neighbors, both him and his wife. They lived together on very good terms so far as I knew. I don't know any thing of Mrs._Earls' intemperance, nor any thing wrong of her. I lived just 'across the street from them. [Here the counsel for the commonwealth, without objecting, permitted the prisoner to give evidence of the general reputation of the deceased for temperance.] * Witness proceeded—I never heard any thing of her drinking till here of late—till after they left Milton. 1 left Milton for two years. When I came back the people then said that she drank too much before she left Milton. That's ell 1 know. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—It was only one person that told me so till after they moved out of town, and then the people talked about it. While we lived away from Milton we lived one year at Pottsville, and two years at Derrstown. I came up on a visit then when I lived in Derrstown, and stayed with her pretty near all day. I think this was about two years after I left Milton. I saw not a bit of liquor in the house at that time—she offered me nothing of the kind. Her appearance did not indicate any thing like a woman that indulged in the bottle. She was always very eteady when I saw her. to ,., piantha Marinwt, *»orn«—I iirect at Mry Earls* t#0 month* after thejp aicred Up to the dam. , We lived a year neat Mangus'. I was present at Che time it is alleged the prisoner threw water on his wife. Betsey Mangu* and I were sitting in the front roomy and we heard a noise. She told me to come to the door that Maria Moritz was coming. I went to the door ; \ saw Mr. Earls jumping out of the sleigh ; he said to Mrs. E. that she had tormented him enough, and he would throw some water on her. He took his hands and splashed some water on her as she was sitting beside the trough. I threw a stick of* wood at him and he carrie after me. He fell into Mr.;Mangus' door. He went out then and came in through the bar room. He asked Mrs. Earls what was the matter.- She said he knew very well. He went out then. She held by the reins of his horse at the trough, when he jump'd out of the sleigh ; she held but a few moments and let go as he jump'd out. She sat down beside the trough, when he threw water on her. No one had hold^of her at that time. She was running after Mr. E. when she got to the trough. She took hold ofthe reins, down by the bridge and turned the horse in between the garden fence and the trough. He threw the water on her with his hands* I did not see Susan Swenk there at all. Mr. Earls and his wife were disputing once—^-he said that she had been intoxicated—she said it was not so. Says he, " Katy, it would have been better if you'd been asleep, than fo have been at that act:" that is, be.< ing intoxicated. She flew in a great passion, and said she knew he would rather lay her asleep. Says he " Kafy I did not say so, I said it would have been better ifvou had been asleep." She still said he did say so. He still told her that he did not. John did say that she might better have been asleep. I have seen Mrs. E. intoxicated. She was intoxicated at the time of this con- versation. I haveseen her intoxicated frequently. I was a good deal at Earls' while I lived opposite fo Mangus'. The two months I lived at Earls' was last spring. One day when I'lived there Mr. Earls was .hunting some pa- pers ; he was getting her to look over those papers. He lifted a paper out of the drawer and it appeared to me that it had about two table spoonfuls in it. He asked her what it was; she snatched it out of his hands and said she knew what it was. The children were playing around the door a couple of days afterwards, and Mrs. Callahan's cow was there—the cow knocked one ofthe children over and she swore she would poison her. I asked where she would get the poison, and she said that was poison John lifted out ofthe drawer t'other day. She said she had got it with the intention to poison Maria Moritz. She said if she could not get revenge of her she would take something that would put an end to her own life. She said nothing more at that time. This was while I lived there, in the spring just before I went awav. It was the last of April or beginning of May that I went away. One time Maria Moritz and Sabina went ud the tow path ; Mrs. Earls prepared herself with a stick again thev came down—-she swore she would kill Maria Moritz if she could. When they came down the low path she invited them in ; an-1 asked Maria what business she had with her man at Northumber- land. Mrs. GriHn ano* T ami Betsev Manjus were by. Maria said she had not hean Mitt. Mrs. Earls said sh? was ; and Maria said it was not true. Mr?, Twirls sfrmk Maria on the face with a stick ; it was a hickory pole. MnriT, rn to th° door ; Mrs. GriliT caught her and pushed her back. Mrs. Earls struck her agim. Mr. E*rls came over and said "come old woman you must not raise a fuss on Sunday." He then kicked Hetty Griffin out of tihe house, and opened the door and let Maria and Sabina out and they run dewn the tow path. Mrs. Earls and Hetty Griffin followed them, and I alsa T7 for about one hundred yards—Mrs. Earl- and Hetty Griffin went a good ----n hitch, dont be coming here to raise disturbances between me and my woman." Then Hetty Griffin, Diantha Marinus and Katy Earls ran down the tow path after them; Katy Earls did not get out ofthe house as quick,as the rest. John did not hold Katy as I seen. He ran before her and says he, you look well running after the girls on Sunday. They followed Maria and Sabina below the bend, then Katy, Hetty arid Diantha came back, and says Katy " I catched your d«----d whore down there, and tore the veil off of her, and her cloak, and tramp'd her cloak in the mud and tore her veil up and .throwed it into the canal." Then said John "you look d----d well after your chase." 'Says she "I look as well as you do." That is all I know about that. I have seen Mrs. Earls in liquor several times. I boated with Earls a good deal—the biggest part of three summers. I.was frequently at his house and boarded there when we were at home. One time she was so full she had to go to bed and going up she kind, of staggered against the house. Sometimes when^she quarrelled with John she was in liquor, and at other times again she was not. I never saw John strike her. She always began on him as quick as ever he cams into the house. I have often seen him turn and go off when she began on him, and go and get his canoe and cross the river and go after lamprey eels. I never saw John put her in the cellar, but I have often heard him say he would put her in if she did not quit her scolding. The cellar is sandy, clean, nice and dry. The door goes into it from the outside ; it stands up pretty steep. I think theie are five or six steps down from the pavement to the bottom of the cellar. There are two windows to the cellar. The house is pretty near square; about twenty- ,five feet each wav ; two stories high and a garret. The chimney comes out at the peak ofthe roof on the side next to Mr. Sechlers^ [the north east side.'] That is all the chimney that is in the house. There is a fire place beloAV and one above. In the lower story the room is between fifteen and sixteen feet one way, and the partition runs clear through the house. One part is used for a sitting room and the other part is used for a kitchen. The kitchen is on the upper side next to Mr^Sechler's.' There is a door cornea into the kitchen from the side next the canal, and one from the side next the river. There is a door comes into the room from the side next to Mr. Mangus'—the lower side next to the shantee, [the south west side.] The stairs go up out of the kitchen. The upper story is divided the same way as the lower story is, as near as \ can tell you. There is a door between the sitting room and the kitchen below, about the centre of the room. There is a door between the two chambers up stairs. It is a rough cast house oh the outside. The stove was usually kept in the sitting room. The family eat part ofthe time in the sitting room ynd part ofthe time in (he kitchen. The shantee stood at the lower side ofthe house down the canal. The canal runs in front of both buildings. The shantee stands the same way with the house there is a small porch between the shantee and the sitting room. The shantee is abou.t twenty feet Jong and fifteen feet wide, and has a shed roof. There is a door in the shantee to communicate with the door in the sitting room. The upper porch shades the lower porch but there is no root over the upper porch. The stairs that go up into the shantee stand between the shantee and the house at the corner next the river. Tbe shantee is called " S3 the bar roena and is all ia one room. There has been a stove kept there. I beard Mrs. Earls say one time that she would not bother him long, or would not be with him a great while longer. It was after corntorping time of last year. The conversation was in her own house before I went down the river. She told me " I dont expect to see you any more," and I asked her why. Says she " 1 dont expect to live much longer than till after I am confined." I asked her what made her think that—she said she did not know, or some- thing that way. 1 was going down the river to Harrisbui'g, and intended to come back about Christmas or new year's. At another time she said she would not live with him much longer. This was last Spring when I came back from being down the river. She was scolding John at the time, and I dont know exactly her language. Mrs. Earls was a middling hasty temper- ed woman. She was middling easy made angry. When angry she talked very roughly, and very fast, you could not hardly get in a word no way.* I have heard her say, when angry, that she would not give up if she was to be killed or something that way. I saw her strike John once with a brush, I believe that was. all. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—She said nothing about her confinement, when she said she would not see me again. She did not refer to it more then I have stated. I dont recollect the whole conversation. John Earls is uncle to my wife. I never saw John abuse his wife except scold and tell her to hold her tongue. When she accused him of going to Moritz's he would tell her he never was there, and laughed about it; and told her to shut up and if she would not shut up he would put her in the cel- lar—sometimes she would shut up and sometimes she would not. Ho never put her in the cellar that I know of. We were catching logs part of the Sunday, till we got tired and then we quit. I was in the room all the time the day Maria was there, he did not throAv his wife out into the kitchen but pushed her into the comer. Mrs. Marinus that Avas examined here to-day is my wife. She helped to chase the Moritz's down the tow path too as far as I could see. Earls and his wife were disputing about Maria Moritz when Mrs. E. said she would not live long with him. She was a rash spoken woman when angry, when in good humor she was a very kind woman. She was good to her children, but not good to him for a year back. She quar- relied with me several times and quarrelled with.her neighbors round. She was kind enough to. her children, not asdsind as some mothers, but alwavs used them well. Re-examined ky Counsel for Prisoner—She used to whip John, who Avas a very bad boy; but she whipped Mary most of any of the children. The first time she went to Milton, she went on Swenk's boat—that was the time Maria Moritz lived there. We went to Williamsport on Sunday and on Monday went to Milton with the boat; J believe he fetched her home from Milton that time. She went once down after that on Saturday with us on the boat to Milton, we loaded goods at Milton, then we came back on Sun- day about ten or eleven o'clock. Then on Monday he sent George Tryon down to Mangus' to get his wagon to go for her to bring her home. John and me fixed the goods in the boat.to be ready to start on Tuesday morning. Mrs. Earls came home on Monday evening with George Try on'on a little, smgon. This was the first year Earls came up to the dam. Adjourned fill nine o'clock to-morrow morning, «s WBDNESDAT MOBKINC, FsURVAR* ib-. William Pott, sworn—in November, 1835, before the death of Mrs. Earls, I was going from Mangus' to Mrs. Stratton's, when I came to Earls* he had catched a great many eels, upwards ofa hundred I think. I asked if he would let me have half a barrel, he said he would. Then several times after that for two or throe weeks, I would still meet him and ask him if he had catched many. He said he bad not catched any hardly, some varmints, either muskrats or minks, destroyed them in his baskets—he said he would put something in his baskets to destroy these varmints. I think it was about four o'clock in the morning Livy Sechler came to Mangus' and said that Mrs. Earls was dead. As soon as it was day light, or between day light hnd sun up I went up to Mr. Earls'. When I came there John was sitting back of his house on a bench on the river side. I asked him how he was, he said he was sick; when he pronounced the Avord sick, the tears began to drop down his cheek. I then asked him what was the matter with him, he said he felt very dizzy in his head. I said probably he had not slept any the night before and that made him dizzy, as his wife had died. He said he had slept, that was not the cause of it. That is all then. Him.and me stept into his shantee and took a drink of whiskey. Then he requested me to go to Mangus' for Mangus to send up some beef. I went down and Maagus Sent it up. I did not see any body when I first went up but Earls. I was not in the house. Earls fished a great deal last summer. He requested me then to stay with him that day—the day before she was buried. I stayed until a few minutes before the funeral left the house. He wished me to stay Avith the children till the funeral came back. He then told me there was two salmon in a box at the river, hnd asked me to clean them and have them cooked by the time the people came back from the funeral. In the evening after the corpse was buried, he asked me if I would stay with him all night. I stayed with him. A few minutes before the corpse was put in the coffin, I went up stairs where heWas and asked him if he would wish to see the corpse before she was.put in the coffin, he said not. Then I came down stairs and left him up there with the children, I think. About the time the corpse was put in the wagon I went up stairs and he walked down with me, but no con- versation took place. I did not see John and the children come down to see the corpse; I was not by when the coffin was closed. ' Daniel Griffin, called.again—It was between a month and two before Mrs. Eails' death, I was at the river when he landed with his canoe coming from the basket. Tasked him what luck he had—he said not much, for the minks or muskrats would come and eat them and cany them off. He showed me several that had been eat. They were eat from the head down two or three inches. Says he " I'll be d----d if I dont fi\ them." He said the first time he'd come to town he'd get some arsenic, and he would put it on some ofthe fish in the basket. I asked him what effect that would have— how he would get them afterwards. He said he did not care about the animals so as he destroyed thefn. I lived about two hundred yards from Earls'. I have seen Mrs. Earls intoxicated. I could not exactly tell whether she was intoxicated the last time he put her In the cellar. John said to her " vou ought to be still, you are drunk aj-aiti." After he put "her in the cellar I walked with him down to the river,—I told him that it was rather tough to put bis wife in the cellar. He made ansAver, he did not wish to hurt her in the 'situation that she was in ; but she must be punished in some way. John Hood, called again—Mr. Earls requested me to go and g< f a coffin fc.:\de after her cbatb. Mr. E. asked Mangu? whether it was necessary t* $4 Avail till Sunday for the burying. Mangus said then he might do as he pleased, but it was long enough the next day at ten o'clock. I went for Mr. Sheetz, the preacher, about two or two and a half miles-from.Earls' at Earls5 request. I came up from Mangus' about half an hour after the women started from there, after Mrs. E's death. He said he would like the people from Milton where she came from, to know that she was dead ; and if they buried her the next day at ten o'clock, they would not get word at Milton, and could not be up. He said they lived there so long, and there Avas ac- quaintances of hers, he wished them to know and attend the funeral. I came to live at Mangus' the first of May, 1835. Mr. Earls said he wanted Mr. Sheetz to preach a funeral sermon. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—Mr. Sheefz lives about a mile from Moritz's. Mary Ann Earls, called again—One day mother she Avent to the drawer and got this piece of calico out [witness shows the dress she has on,] and she gave it to me. I asked her what's the reason she did not want it; she said she would not live long to make it. I cant tell when it Avas, hut it was a month or so before her death. It Avasnot made up ; it was got for mother. Afterwards she got a piece of calico for the two little ones, and she said my sister might have it—I mean my sister Susan. Papa went in the drawer one day ; he took up a blue paper, and asked mamma what it was ; shei took it out of his hand; she did not say any thing—did not tell him what it was. Diantha (Mrs. Marinus) Aras by. I know that Mrs. Callahan's cow knocked over one ofthe children. I never heard mother say Avhat was in that paper. I have often heard mother say she would not live long—she just said, that,- that's all I heard her say—it was before she gave me this dress. I dont mind ever hearing her say any thing about wishing she Avas dead. I dont recollect that any body was by when she gave me the calico. I recollect the day the show was at Pennsborough last spring. Pap he landed a raft that morning, and the two men what was on it took breakfast at our house ; dont know Avhere he run from. It Avas middling.early, about eight o'clock, when they landed the raft. I believe I went to the show that day. I believe Mr. Mangus got our boat, and we all went up in the boat. I made a mistake in my testimony before—Livy Sechler was in when mother eat her supper, the night before she died. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—I dont think I made any other mistakes. The frock Avas not made up before mother died. Mr. Ellis asked me if it was not a mistake about Livy Sechler—that's the Avay I found it out. Mother said nothing about her approEfching confinement at the time she told me she would not live long. Mother did not say any thing when she took the paper from father; it would hold one or two table spoon- fuls. It was taken from pap's drawer—sometimes he kept the key, and sometimes she kept it. I was present when the cow knocked ovei the child —it was Eliza the cow knocked over. I was in the room all the time Livy Sechler was there; I was up before she came, and remained all the time she was there. Daniel Doubt, called a%ain—I have seen Earls go up to the dam in the morning by times—about sun rise or sometimes before it, to run craft through the Muncy schute, or to run them to tide. He would go up as far as Stratton's. This was last Spring. I have seen him on arks passing my house in the fore part ofthe day. He was called a pilot through the schute and down the river both. I have known watermen to enquire for him. Sarah Mull, sworn—In May last, Maria Moritz came to live at my Is house. I guess it wa£in August she left my house. Sam Garnhnrf was there through the whole summer, the bigger part of every Sunday; be would stay sometimes till it was time to go to bed. I could not get him away, Sometimes I was partly undressed and sometimes in bed before he would go. He wanted to stay with Maria, and 1 would not allow it. I never heard Maria call to John Earls a.t eleven o'clock at night at our house. She slept down stairs when I would be alone. When my husband came home, then she would sleep upstairs. Earls was at our house one day in June last, cant tell what day it was; he wanted me fo knit a fish seine for him. It was between twelve and two o'clock in the day. He stayed but a short time—no longer than while he talked to me about the seine. One morning in July, Alick'Ma'rinu'n and John Earls came to our house and Avakened us. Maria Avas to take up in the harvest field of Win'. Moritz, her father. I did riot work in the harvest field, but the other girls worked, (her sisters.) Earls was not there at any other time that I seen, during Maria's stay at our house. 1 Avas not away from home unless it was on Sunday sometimes. I never knew Earls to be in our house after night Avhile Maria stayed with me. I am a daughter of Wm. Moritz, and a sister of Maria. I know the chamber at my father's house where my sisters sleep ; there is a bolt in the inside of that door. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—1 think the bolt has . been there ever since they lived there—ever since 1 can mind ; it is on the room door where the girls sleep ; there is but one room door—the room is tip stairs. There is a string with a latch to pull up. Sometimes they have three beds and sometimes four in the room. Strangers and boarders slept in the adjoining room. It is a couple of years since I took'notice to the bolt; the bolt is made of wood. Maria did not keep company with any body while she lived at my house. She never kept company with any per- son while at my house Avithout.my permission. I cant tell whether Earls was about the stable or not; I was not out to see. Maria went home to Stay with Sabina sometimes. It is not far from our house to father's—just across a meadow. The stable is about six or eight rods from our house=- My husband was hot at home when Earls came with Marinus to wake \\$« As they came to the house they came in right away ; we have a bolt, but I dont lock the door every evening ne'r.bolt it; it is Very seldom I bolt the door. The outside door leads into the entry ; the stairs go up from the entry. Maria went to stay with her sisters sometimes all night; Earls did net come there—I had no need to scold Maria. Re-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—My husband was working from home last summer. Sometimes he Avould come home once a week an$ sometimes twice; he worked about two miles from home. I have noticed the bolt frequently Avithin two years. Sometimes I am at my father's e\ery day in the week. William Mull, sworn—Sam Garnhart came fo our house almost every Sunday; he Avas there sometimes in the evening of Sunday when I came home. He would stay until after we Avent to bed or were undressed, and J would have to get up and shut the door. I did not hear my wife request him to go away. I lived last summer with Captain Hutchison, noar two miles from our house. I saw John Earls at out house once. He asked the old woman if she would knit a fish seine for him. There was no hay in the mow in the month of May. The floor of the mow was made with poles. The stable is about six or seven rods from the house—may be not quite It is a coav stable; there is no thrashing floor fo it. S<5 Wrcss- exam tied by Counsel for Commonwealth—I have about five acred of land, some mt;aciow and some upland. I keep a cow and sometimes two^ I had two m the spring. I cant tell w hat portion Avas meadow—about an acre and a half of meadow, and may be not that, I never measured it I fed the cows on straw. I keep the straw by the stable and over the pig pen* The over shoot forms a pig pen. The pig pen is made of rails. We .put the straw at the gable end of the pig pen. There is kind of polesf laid over the pig pen. i had some straw in the mow in the corner, and scattered over the poles; it was loose straw. The stable below is dirty; the cows stay there. It is a small stable; the gable end is open. It is about twelve feet to the top of the square. The mow floor is about five feet high. One stable door opens towards the house; it goes into the foddering room. Sabina Moritz, sworn—When I came from singing school I slept Avith Henrietta and Maria. Maria and Harriet both steep in the same bed with me. Tiieie was means by which the door could be fastened ; there was a Wooden wedge above the door to fasten it. When I came to the door, Maria got up and opened it; it was fastened. She bolted the door again after I was in. John Shuman came along from singing school, and a whole parcel of others. My sister Maria and me went up to Mr. Doubt's one Sunday; Ave hoard Mr. Sheetz had meeting. We stayed thereat Doubt's till afternoon. Then we went home ; and as we were coming down past Mr. Earls', Mrs. Earls she came out, and told us to come in. She had her sleeves rolled up and her frock pinned up. She told us to come in, and we went in. Then Rh<; began to quarrel right away with Maria, as soon as ever we went in. She talked so fast and was so angry I did not understand what she said to Maria. Then Mr. Earls told her she should not raise a quarrel on Sunday. She said, -'I dont care a d----n what you say;" then he said, " if you want to say any thing to the girl, tell her in a week day." Tnen Susan, M'Allaster brought her a stick. Then Mrs. Earls took the stick out of her hand and struck Maria. Th;m Mr, Earls he pulled her away and told her .she .should quit. Then she told him she Avould hot-and she struck her again. Then Mr. Earls pushed her back, and Hgt Griffin was standing at the door? he pushed her away and opened the door, nnd we ran down the tow path and they followed, but did not overtake us. It was Hetty Griffin, .Mary Earls. Mrs. Earls, Betsey Mangus and Mrs. Marinus thai foilowed'us. They run Us pretty fast. Hetty Griffin was on pretty close behind me, and she said, " I swear I'll take the life of Maria if I catch her." I think this was in the spring. My sister Harriet and me went to Pennsborough two or three weeks before Mrs. Earls' death. She came out at the door as we c-ame »p and stopped us, and she asked me whether I wouid not come and nnr.w her when she got sick. I told her 1 did not know whether I could or not: I would ask mother whether she would let me go. She said she had asked Katy Haller and Katy Sarver and they could not come. She said if I would come she would give me some poison, artd I should give her some after she was sick. I totd her if she had such bad thoughts I would not come. Then she said, "If yon dont come, I shall have it close enough to my bed that I can take it myself." She said, " well if you dont corrie, I have got trunks and chests that I will have close enough to the lied that I can take it." She said, "poison I 11 take—poison shall be mv death—and poison will be my death." Then she said, " before my child is a week old, yon v. ill.hear that I am dead, and then you'll know what I have told you."" Nothing further was said. All the reason she gave was, that she said she liked liquor so that she could not help but flrmk it. She was about a rod or so. from the house at the. R* unie of this conversation. My sister Harriet was with me, but she went oft" before she said much about it. She went on apiece, near Mr. Sechler's, where she stood till I come. When she heard her make such hard threats she went on. I told her then when 1 catched up what Mrs. Earls had said. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commomvealth—l was sociable with Mrs. Earls.. I was at her house several times. 1 had not been at the house from the time she struck Maria until this conversation. Mrs. Earls was at our house still. iShe'was in the habit of visiting our house.' She had not been at our house from the time she struck Maria till this took place. There is a good many strangers come to our house. We always bolt the outside door of our house. I knew that Mr. Earls was at our house—John Shuman and me met him at Gamhart'S barn. When I came to the door of Maria's room s.he Avas not asleep. I told her to get up and open the. door. There was three beds in the room that night. Harriet was in bed with Maria when I got in. We bolted that room door every night winter, and summer, the Whole year round. I dont know why w;e bolted that door Avhen the front door was bolted. Father.he gets up sometimes at night and leaves the back door open—that's the reason we bolted the room. Nobody told us to bolt it;, we always bolt it ourselves without being told. Nobody breaks into our house at night, or comes hi without permission. When I tried the room door, 1 found it fast, and Maria opened it and said I should come to bed to her. We did- not ahvays sleep together, but she said I should. When I came in Harriet Avas not asleep. We was not very much crowded. I slept sound enough that night. After I Avas in bed awhile I went asleep. I heard r>o noise that night of any body getting up. I wakened sometimes during that night. If any body had got into that rooni I would have known it, I am sure of that. There was no man in pur room that night. We did not talk about any body in the house that night. When Ave met John Earls he said he was going to our house then. 1 asked whether Ea;ls was there when I came home, and then I heard him snore. I asked her whether Earls was there, and she said he was; that was before I Avent to bed. I slept with Maria the night before. Harnet Avas not there the. night before. Earls sjept out in the kitchen loft—the adjoining room. I heard him snore long after I went to bed. I made Shuman's bed,, and swept up stairs next morn- ing, I got up in the morning Avhen Maria did ; she came down stairs with me. Earls said he had his money laid under his pillow, and he did not knoAv whether he had it all or not; he had dropt some and we should look and get it. I heard all he said ; he said if we found any we should give it to him again, and we told him avo would. This was at the head ofthe stairs, just as we were going dovyn ; it was not quite day light. He said he bad his money in a handkerchief; this was right at the door ofthe room where he slept. That was the only time Earls was there all night. I found no' money; nor Maria that I know of—I looked for if. John Shuman slept with Earls that night. I did not. look under the pillow; he did not say any thing about a pillow. I never said " that father could gain any cause, be- cause I would swear any thing he told me." I never said any thing about that my father could gain any cause. I was up to prison once to see Earls before the first court. My sister Harriet lived in Wiliiamsport ; her and me came up together. I told Harriet, Maria, and mother about Mrs. Earls going to poison herself. / told Harriet as quick as I caught up with her and told the rest when I came home. I never told any other person; but I told Mrs. Mull after her. death, mid nobody but my mother and sisters before. 1 allied my mother about go;,-,£ fo Mr.*. Earls'; she sa;td I mu^t not go ; if shu S£ would get poisoned then it would be beamed on me A never told Johniiari^ of this at any time. 1 did not tell him at the jail; we did not talk about the court there at all—I was there no time. 1 never told Mis. Earls' children, nor Earls' mother. Mrs. Earls was not angry ; she was in a good humor when she told me that. I did not like to say any thing about it to no stranger —1 did not like to tell it. She did not say any thing about the quarrel my sister and her had—Maria is here but mother aint. Mrs. Earls and me never had any disputes or quarrels. I never heard of any hard things she said about me. Adjourned till three o'clock, P. M. After noon Session. Henrietta Moritz, sworn—My sister and me once Avere going to Penns- borough ; and just as we passed Earls', Mrs. E. called on us, and asked my sister if she would come and nurse her; she said she did not care, she Avould ask mother. She said she had a trunk cjose to her bed, and said she had some poison in there, and that after she was in bed she should give it to her. After 1 heard that she had such conversation as that, says I " Sabina come on, we'll not listen to it," and I just walked off. I went on as far as above Sechler's there, and she did not come, and I stopped there—I mean Sabina. Sabina stood and waited till she was done talking. After she came up she told me that Mis. Earls said, poison she would take, and poison'should be her death, and she would take poison. After she came home, Sabina told mother of it and told mother all about it. Mother said she should not go, if she had such mind as that; if she would do that, why then Sabina would be blamed for it. When Sabina and SJiuman came home from singing school, Sabina came to the door; she rattled at the door and Maria she got up and opened it. After she came in Maria shut the door, and said, "I guess you are cold ;" says she "yes." Maria said " Sabina, come in bed to us ;" she came to bed to us and slept with us through the night. After Sabina came ..in, Maria bolted the door. There was but a wooden wedge in the door above , the latch. We always kept it fastened by that wedge when Ave fastened it. .1 was not at singing school that night; lohn Shuman Avas with Sabina. The jiamily were in bed before they came from school. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—I have stated exaetly the words that Mrs. Earls used. This was the first thing Mrs. E. said ; she did ijiot say any thing mote than just what I have stated. Sabina and me passed there and she stopped us ; Ave Avere both together when she began to talk. I ; heard all I have said here, and that's all. I did not hear all that she heard, I heard all that Avas said to Sabina before I left her. O, yes, I heard all that, jMrs. Earls spoke loud to us. I never told Earls any thing about it—never. I allowed it was none of my business to say any thing about it. I did not say any thing to none of his family. I have beenuptosee Mr. Earls in jail; it was before the last court; my sister Sabina came with me. We did not just come up on purpose to see him, but I allowed while we Avere in town we might as well go there and see him. I did not say any thing to him at all— O, yes, I shook hands with him, and talked a little: he asked me how the rpst was. Matia was not along. I did not want to make a noise about it, sind did not like to say any thing about Mrs. Earls poisoning herself to other folks. John Eai Is was often at our house ; I cant tell how often he was there. I was at home in bed when John Earls came for Shuman, it was in March or April; the girls told me he came for Shuman—Maria and Sabina, Earls and Shuman did not come together. I ^ay- robody qomc wilh>Earls. I did S9 «wi near him say any thing'when he came—father was at heme. Maria «w at home and Sabina was at singing school when Earls came there. Earl- slept above the kitchen. 1 sleep usually with Maria. Sabina sleeps by heisejii sometimes, and sometimes with us. Sabina is the youngest sister', *.arls did not come into our room that night at all. I dont know just what time I fell asleep. Maria bolted the door. We always bolt the door. We always bolt the outside door below. We alwavs keep ours bolted, because tether sometimes gets up in the night and forgets to bolt the lower door. vve found no money next morning. Maria and Sabina got up together— they got up first. I did not hear Earls say that he left anv money under his pillow. Earls did not go to bed that night before I did. 'He was in the house when I went to bed. Father, mother and Maria Avere with him. It was late when I went to bed; 1 dont know what time father and mother went to bed. Maria Avent to bed along with me. There were three beds in that room where we slept. It was a middling cold night. I slept sound all night, but got awake once in a while. The latch of our door was fixed with-a string so as to pull up. I was not asleep when my sisters got uo • tney got up early. There is a board partition between the two rooms and a garret above. Mr. Ellis, for the prisoner, here asked leave to present the Avritlen state- ment of Susan Earls, made before the justices, which he alleged contained an important fact which she had omitted in her testimony before the court. The counsel for the commonwealth did not admit the paperto contain the testi- mony of Susan Earls, and it was required to be proved. The examining jus- tices were called but were not in court; the counsel for the prisoner then called .*Solomon Mangus, who stated that he was not piesent at the examination of Susan Earls before the justices, and had never heard her say any thing about her mother saying she would poison herself. The statement was not signed by either of the justices, or the witness, and the CouHt rejected it as not properly authenticated. Dr. James Hepburn, called again—White arsenic has little or no taste in the powder. It is stated by Mitchell <$• Durand, who have lately experimented on the subject, that in strong hot solutions it has an austere taste. Six drachms in a pint would make a strong solution, certainly ; ^suppose that amount could be tasted in a pint of chocolate. I have placed the powder of white arsenic on my tongue; there was no particular taste, but an unplea- sant sensation left in the mouth*- Solubility-is essential to taste—articles that arc insoluble are tasteless. The organs of taste vary much, depending upon the state of health. Nitrate of silver is composed of oxyde of silver, dissolved in nitric acid. Nitric acid is composed of nitrogen and oxvo-en. Nitrogen gas composes the largest portion of atmospheric air. Lunar eaustic is fused nitrate of silver run into moulds; it is generally pure enough for chemical or medical purposes. The definition of austere, is severe, harsh, sour of taste. Cross-examined by Comfrei for Commonwealth—I never heard it sug- gested before the recent experiments of Mitchell 4,- Durand, that arsenic had an au.stere taste when in hot solutions. It would have more taste dis- solved in hot Avater than in chocolate. Alexander Marinus, called again— Mr. Ellis stated that this witness was recalled for the purpose of proving '?hatthe prisonei, John Earls, had never been legally married to his reputed wife, Catharine Earls, and thiit lie had another, wm-'now living, to whom he 0® had been married pretious to his adulterous connexion with the deceased, Mr. E. stated that this fact had come to their knowledge but a few hour? lince; and they offered it to rebut the evidence of motive alleged by the counsel for the commonwealth to exist on the part ofthe prisoner for the murder of Catharine Earlsi The counsel for the commonwealth objected to the evidence as out of place, out of time, and inadmissible in any point of view. The counsel on both sides discussed the question at length, when the Court decided in favor of admitting the evidence—giving to. the prisoner in this, as in other instances, the benefit of their doubts* Witness proceeded—I know nothing about Earls' having another wife only what I heard Mrs. Ogle say. I never heard it from John Earls or his wife. Samuel B. Barker, sworn—I know nothing of Earls' having another wife only what I heard his mother say. The testimony in behalf of the prisoner here closed. The counsel for the commonwealth then offered the following rebutting testimony. Christian Page, called again—I never seen Mrs. Earls drunk in my life, nor never saAv her drink any. 1 live half a mile from Earls'. 1 have lived *hat near her two years next spring. I never heard rfny body say she was drunk until I came to Williamsport, or not until her death. I know Sabina snd Henrietta Moritz when I see them. Their character for tiuth and ve- Tecity in the neighborhood is not much. It is bad, all Avhat 1 have heard >'et. 1 am acquainted with Mrs. Marinus; she lived better than a year 92 life. I had some quarrels Avilh Mrs. Earls but none with John. I lived aS. Moritz's about a quarter of a year and may be a little more—this winter a year ago. I lieard ot the character of Sabina and Henrietta before I got there ; but not as much as I found out when I got there awhile. I never was examined before this trial commenced. I live with Mr. Brown at Wat- sonstOAvn. I never told any person that I know of, that I kuew all. about these people's characters till just now. George Lilly, called again—I never saw Mrs. Earta in liquor. I never heard any general report of it before her death. I live about two miles from Earls'—it will be four years in next spring since I lived there. The general character of Henrietta and Sabina Moritz for truth is bad.; that is the general report. The general character for truth of William Mull is not too good—it is called bad. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I have heard a great many say that Mull's character was bad—I cant tell how manyi I live between a quarter and half a mile from Moritz's. I never had difficulty with them. We are on good terms as neighbors, but dont go much togethe?. Hugh Donly, called again—I never knew of Mrs. Earls' drinking—for a year I lived within a mile of Earls'. The general report is that Henrietta and Sabina Moritz are not to be believed. Wm. Mull's general character for truth is about the same as the xMoritz girls. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—1 live now I suppose abojfj seven miles from Moritz's. I have known them about three years. I cant tell who all I heard speak of them—it is the opinion of near about all the people in Turbut township. Dr. William R. Power, affirmed—I believe that Avriters upon the subject of diseases of women and children, universally speak of pregnancy as causing despondency of mind. Judging from my own experience, it is by no means infrequent for women a short time before confinement to anticipate an un- happy result—death. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—They do not generally talk about suicide, nor about taking arsenic. I practised physic about seven years. Dr. William H. Ludwig, called again—I have practised medicine four years where I now live. It is the case that Avomen frequently before con- finement apprehend.an unfavorable issue to their pregnancy. ' Adjourned till nine o'clock to-morrow morning. Thursday Morning, February 11, Thomas M'Kee, sworn—I know Sabina and Henrietta Moritz Avhen I see them—I cannot say much about their character for speaking the truth— the general report is that it is not good. William Mull's character for speak- ing the truth is not very good in our part ofthe country. I reside in Turbut Jownship, Northumberland county, about a mile from Moritz's. Cross-examined by Counsel for Prisoner—I have brought an ejectment against John Earls for the place Avhere he resided. I claim the land—suit is now pending. Catharine Callahan, called again—At the time I Avent to Earls' after the woman was dead, there was no trunk nor box near the bed. I saAV none there when I dressed her the day before she died. I saAV a trunk the day I dressed the baby—it came out ofthe other room. There avus four caps— cwoor three little shirts—some baby frocks and ten or eleven diaper* irttUv «.>3 trunk.- Some of the caps wqre nev\\ as ( thought. I think the other clothes ware wurii before. 'I'he diapers weie clean and nice—they were made of muslin and had not been used for that purpose before. The dresses did not seem new to me, but they weie good 'enough for any baby to wear. They were ironed up clean and nice, and put up carefudy , and a piece of paper on the bottom of' the trunk to keep them clean. Mr. Earls himself went for me ; thejy h id not spoken to me before to prepare Tor her confinement. Mrs. Sechler was there before me when she had her baby. There Was not a paper in the world in the trunk but a half sheet of papei, and a paper of pins'— part ofthe pins were gone—one row was left, and'live or sdx old pins stuck into it that had been u^.d before. CrossTexamined by Counsel for Prisoner—I examined the trunk the very day she lay in. To the best of my knowledge I saw the trunk brought out ofthe other room, and put at the fi.oi of the bed on a chair; it was not set down along side ofthe bed. There was no chest or trunk near the bed av hen I came in the time she died ; there was a cheat over at the other side of the room—a clothes chest. Tho trunk Was not locked that was brought in with baby clothes in—I dont know whether it had been locked at ail. Theie was none near the bed when I was there the day before she died, that 1 saw. Jacob llcgciuiobler, a witne.-s prrviously examined, came forward volun- tarily aiid stated—i want to mention that I did nay to Zacluiiiuh Welshanse, in the Prothonotan.X office, that I thought Earls blood a poor chance, or that he would be hung. The counsel for the commonwealth here closed their reb.ittir.g testimony. The counsel for the prisoner then introduced the following surrebutting,. evidence. Edith Burl c.r, sworn—1 went to Mr. Earls', and said 1 would take the chiid to. suckle it till after the burying. Then the old lady said, " how can?. I part Avith my little baby I—Katy is gone and how can I part with my b».by !'*- 1 took the child.home with me. The old lady went iato the room to where the trunk stood and got some clothes. I did not go into the room till she came out. Then says I, "granny, these are too big, have you no smaller ones?" She said to me you can go and look whether there is any smaller ones or not; and I got up and went into the room with her, and looked into the trunk and got some smeller ones. There was a paper lying there,. whether blue or brown 1 dont recollect Avhich. I picked it up, and says lt >' granny what's this?" she made me no answer, and I laid it down again. I did nothing with the paper. 1 dont know what"was in the paper ; on the- outside there was something that looked whitish ; it looked like buckwhent flour or something like it on the outside. It had either a white or blue thro-»] round it. It was just rolled up, and whether it was tied, doav I cant recollect. I cant say how much was in it; I cant say Avhethei there Avaa any thing in the paper or not. There was. but a little of the stuff on the outside; and whether it lay on the bottom of the trunk, and got it dusted on or how, I dont know. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—-Jt was rolled up in that manner, and not more than so long, [witness referred to a fat package, about an inch and a half wide, and four inches long, resembling a paper of pins, shown her by the counsrf for the ri-,;nmonwealth.] It. Avar; not taken ^•■'■ii at all. " 1 laid it down where 1 got it- l\ >>X; in 'he <:uX: -Lit had (he; hi.by clothes in. It was in the second room up stairs. We pus.*ed through'a room to go to if. I think the old lady drew the trunk out from under a bud. There was a small tire place in tho first room, and the women were Kiting there what was at the house. It is likely it was a paper thai pins might have been rolled in : I took no notice whether it Avas or no». I came up to court a week yesterday. 1 cant tell who subpoenaed me. Daniel Doubt, called again—\ have known Alexander Marinus-and his wife. I have heard different stories about them; sometimes bad and some- times good: I have heard nothing against their truth and veracity. They lived about two miles fro'm m^ when thuy lived in that neighborhood. James M'Coy, called again—\ have known Alexander Marinus, about four or five years. I cant say any thing against the character of him and his wife; th**v never told me any stories that I know of. I never heard any thing against them ; I was not much about there. I was about the dam while they lived there, and boated with him tor Earls. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—I was raised about there, but lam most commonly on the public works. Solomon Mangus, r.ailed again—Mr. Marinus and his wife was living down there, in one of my housesv I think may be Mrs. Marinus woukl tell the truth on her oath. I 'think I would believe her on her oath as near as I can say about it. Cross-examined by Counsel for Commonwealth—The general talk ,;s that she has not a good character for truth; but on her oath I dont know what a peraon might s;;y. but I evpect may bo she mX'ht tell thotiuth. (Testimony closed.) • SPEECH OF JAMES AUXSTIIOXG, ESQ. FOR THE COMMONWEALTH. By permien^n of the Court; Gentlemen of the Jury .- — The lon< and arduous examination of witnesses in which we have been engaged, has now been brought to a chjse, and the solemn task of deducing from the testimony ihe innocence or gu It ofthe prisoner at the bar, devolves upon you. That you will meet the emergency with proper firmness, 1 entertain not a doubt; and the untiring and patient attention which you h-avo given to the evidence, is a sure guaranty to the prisoner that his case will receive a f.»ir and impartial consideration at your hands. You are emphatically a jury of the prisoner's own choice. This Hon. Court informed him of his right of challenge, which has been exercised to its fullest extent; and you' have been selected for your in'egrity, your intelligence and your humanity; In the progress of this c-.»se every necessary ficility haa been rendered to the prisoner—he has had ihe process ofthe Court to insure the attendance of his witnesses—his cause was continued at his instance from De- cember till Pebruary Term ; and with reg.trd to the admission of evidence, every thing- the least doubtful in its character, was resolved on the prisoner's side; and to ■ this the counsel for the commonwealth accord their most cheerful assent, tV-* they will never ask a conviction accompanied with doubts, lie has also been favored with the ablest counsel, who whh great experience, have united the most fervent zeal for their client; and in whose hands the defence could never suffer. Under such circumstances, should the issue be unhappy for the defendant, I should be' strongly confirmed in the justice of your verdict. In this enlightened country, where every man by the constitution ofthe State has a "right to be heard by himself and counsel"—where no man can be c >mpelled to give evidence against himself—where no man can be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, unless by the judgment of h'i3 peers, or the laws of the land ; where the laws are mild in their character and bcn;#:; «,j thev Sr-fiurivje, we can only rely upon the certainty of punishment, f-.iv the pccvtr,tion ol crime. As eoi'vitutnt psns of this court we eaeil have our res- 95 prctive duties to peiform, and we must each share the overwhelming responsibilities that surround tin's cause. From you, gentlemen, who ate called from jour peaceful fire sides to take a part in the administration of public justice, much is expected. You are the bulwark of your country's rights—you are the fort-flcation and wall against vhich the innocent may lean with safety, and the inexorable and dreaded tribunal at which the guilty fear and tremble. As men, you might be disposed to cast the mantle of charity over the sin of the culprit, and turn him over to that exulted court where the motive and the action aie equally known 5 but &s jurors, ou'ended society calls upod you for redresa. To the juries of our country must we look lor thep-otection of all that is dear to us in life. All law is perhaps a reflection on society, and its very necessity, proves the depravity of our natures. Without it we are at sea with- out a compass—power usurps the place of right—the weak must yield to the strong —the poor to the rich —and malevolence and passion sway their sceptre over virtue and innocence. Yet what are civil and criminal codes, unless dispensed with wisdom and firmness ? Why is it that "your house is your castle?" What is it that securesyou in the possession of your homes and your property, where you ma) " sit down undet your own vine and ng tree, and there is none to make you afraid r" Why is it that you can lay your heads on your pillows in safety, nor feai the midnight assas- sin i To what do we owe our characters and reputations, and whatever of peace and harmony prevails in the community .' It is to the supremacy of the laws, wisely and judiciously administered. For myself, as the prosecuting attorney of trie commonwealth for this county, and for my colleague, 1 state unaffectedly that we feel the responsibility which hongs over us, with afflicting weight. The advocate perhaps should always fee! the truth and justice of the conclusions he would arrive at. To this principle my feelings do not run counter, and I have no'hesitation in saying from a view of the whole c»3e before us, that n.y opinion and my duty flow in tne same current. There was a period in the judicial history of Pennsylvania, when jurcrs were permitted to be sworn in capital cases, " well and truly to try the issue joined and a true verdict give according to the evidence," and yet at the same time were totally disqualified by mental reservations. And of its pernicious' tendency, u recollection of'past events in our own county will be sufficient to convince you Uui you, gentlemen, with your charactetistic manliness smd candor, have severally stated previous to beirlg sworn, that you have no conscientious scruples on the subject ol finding a verdict of murder in the-first degree, the punishment be.ing dea'h, if the evidence would warrant it. Believing therefore that you have taken your seats in that box with minds free Irorn all bias, ami capable only of receiving impression.- from the evidence, I shall addrets you with confidence that ihe rights ol the commonwealth, &ts well as those of the prisoner, will be properly regarded. You have been told that a "a cloud cf prejudice,black and blighting hangs round this cause." But I beg you to remember it is (torn the defendant's counsel you hear this first. When you were empaimellcd as jurors, the court directed * private room for your convenience, and gave you two-officers lo attend you, with directions that you should speak to no one, nor should any person be permitted lo speak lo you. And never have the admonitions ofa court been better observed. Whatever there may be of public excitement; it cannot hate reached you. I will not deny the ex- traordinary degree of interest manifested on Ihis occasion ; this hall, crowded from day to day as it has been since the commencement of this trial, pro\es it. But 13 this an indication ot "prejudice, bhek and blighting ?" No. I rather regard the presence ot this vast assemblage as an evidence of the veneration in whicli the institutions and laws ofthe country are held, and of an honest desire to witness their proper administration. When apathy and indifference reign among tlie peo- ple, wid they shall cease to look' upon lite crimes of malefactors with abhorrence, then indeed may we fear that blind and mUyuided prt-judic* will hold the scales of justice. The commonwealth !us been charged with " thirsting for blood." This is but the common asseveration of counsel, and the exuberance of a zeal which, when better directed, deserv. s lo be approved. . V* nether wt- hate, in the course of this trial, exhioited any undue warmth, is a matter within jcur own observation, and t* you we muy -afely appeal. For my own part, if then, is any thing I have to reproach myseil with, it is. a degree of moderation and forbearance which the evidence in Una cause, shows the defendant to be unworthy of. it is not my intention now to notice blithe remarks made in the tr-rj full opening for the defendant; they will fall in hereafter in iheir proper place. But when you wert told by ihe gtntlemarc, (Mr. S'a^wxh} that "if Ar wert in tht p'^cc of Johti Eark. rching solely on the laws (A i>6 the Und, he would not aBk counsel to stand up and say a word in his defence," surely, with the testimony staring us in the lace, you will not look upon this as se- rious ; nor will you, for the prisoner's sake, accept it as a specimen by which to de- cide on the soundness of the coucluslons 'hey are yet to submit to you. With the peculiar notions that obtain with many as to the right to take away life, •we have nought to do. The aw fulness of death, and the terror with which it is met, is often dependant on the circumstances of education, or the want of it. When the Hindoostan mother voluntarily throws her living infant in the Ganges, to appease the wrath of her imaginary gods.; or immolates herself on the funeral pile of her husband, she but obeys the law of her education, and yields to impulse, born in ig- norance and nurtured in superstition—yet even tbere, where the light ofthe gospel religion s^idom beams the wilful murderer meets his doom and receives his ade- quate punishment. Murder, in whatever shape it may appear, has ever been consi- dered as first and boldest in the calender of crimes ; not only because it filis to over- flowing the measure of human woe. but often sends its victims to account before "a Werid cf untried beings," with " all their infirmities on their heads," and of all kinds of murder, that perpetrated by means of poison is the most base and wicked. It requires a heart so wretchedly depraved, so cruelly bent on mischief, that it cannot entertain one single quality that adorns the human character. What an illustration we have before us ! Without premising further, I shall proceed to the consideration of the case. I shall endeavour* to offer you a plain argument, the object of which shall be, by a fair comment Dn the evidence, to make oyt s.ibstaniially the truth ofthe facts laid in the indictrrtem. By the act of 1794, Purdon 647, "all murder which shall be prepetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of wilful), deliberate and premeditated killing," 6fc. -'shall be deemed murder in the first degree." There are two counts in this indictment; the first of which in substance charges; John Earls, the defendant, with mixing and mingling certain deadly poison, to wit: white arsenic, in certain chocolate prep-red for the use of his wife Catherine Earls, for her drink, and which he caused to be administered to her, thereby producing her death. The second count, charges the defendant with mixing am; mingling white arsenic, with certain tea, prepared for her drink, and which was in like manner ad- ministered lo her, thereby causing her death. You will perceive therefore from the tin ure of the offence charged, that you are relieved from the consideration of any secondary degree of guiV. Your duty will be to find him guilty in manner and form ss he stands indicted, or return him to society as an innocent and injured man- There is no middle ground to.occupy. This case does not admit of an accessory. The least participation constitutes a principal. We are told that "every man is presumed innocent, till he is proved guilty;" we concede to the defendant the benefit •ofthe maxim • and we admit without being reminded of it, that the commonwealth are boind-to make out their case. We promise you gentlemen to do so—not per- haps by whav is termed direct and positive proof—but by a concatenation of circum- stances so irresistible and absolute in their character, as to carry conviction to the •mind of the most incredulous. The order which this'case admits of, readily presents itself to the mind. The first position which it is incumbent on the commonwealth to establish is, that Catharine Earls died of poison ; and second, that John Bails, the defendant, is the guilty agent. This arrangement will draw into consideration all ihe important facts in the cause. I piocecd to maintain the first position. About the first of October 1835, John Earls purchased from John Carter, druggist, of Northumbeiland, as proved oy him, a quantity of white arsenic, supposed to be about two drachms, or what would lay on the point ot a case knife. On Tuesday the loth ofthe same month, the day ofthe general election—he »lso purchased arsenic, or ratsbane as the witnesses called it, at the apothecary store of Uruner &, Dawson in Pennsborough. On Wednesday the ;4'h, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, Mrs. Earls was confined, and gwve bir;h to an infant. On the evening of thai day, she was visited by her nearest t.-tightiour, Sirs. Sechler, who says she •" left her bravely," and that on Thursday morning, "she appeal-id as well a> a woman could be." Mrs- Earls then said "she was well and better than she formerly was," on such occasions. On the afternoon tf Thursday, Mrs. Callahan ealled on her, and she then ''seemed well and hearty as could be expected," drank a bowl of chocolate, and took some preserves and other things, which rud been prtpared for her dinner, with a proper relish. About half •Her !i:X o'clock on the i.ifiie evening, Miss Olivia itchier called in to see Mrs. Earls* fcs'd walking up v_> lur bzti asked how she was. she replied, "she felt quite well." I 97 She was then «6ling her supper. Alas! poor unsuspecting Catharine, she knew not that it was her last supper. A few short hours and she had " passed that bourne from whence no traveller returns." At half after: three o'clock inthe morning, ahe was a lifeless corpse. With this outline of facts, and before noticing the testimony bearing on this part ofthe case, it may be -well to refer to medical authority for the symptoms which characterize a death by poison from arsenic. In Wood £sf Bache't Dispensatory, p. 20, the following among others are enumerated ; " an austere taste ; felid state ofthe mouth -, continual hawking; constriction ofthe pharynx, and oesophagus ; ths sensation of the teeth being on edge ; hickups; nausea; anxiety; frequent sinkings, burning pain at the precordia ; inflammation ofthe lips, tongue, palate, throat, and oesophagus, irri'able stomach, so as not to support the blandest drinks ; vomiting of matters, sometimes brown, at other times bloody ; insatiable thirst; burning heat over the whole body, or a sensation of icy coldness; difficult respiration; cold sweatuj a livid circle round the eye lids ; livid spots over the surface ; prostration of strength ; loss of feeling, especially in the feet and hands; delirium; convulsions, &c. It it r<:ry rare lo observe all Jhese symptoms in the same individual. In some cases indeed "they are nearly, all wanting, death taking place without any pain or prominent symptom." It is also laid down in same book,/*. 20, that "afterdeath, the morbid appearances are various. In some cases no vestige of lesion can be discovered. Tit* appearances, however in the generality of cases, are the following:—The mouth, j'.omach and intestines, are inflamed ; the stomach and duodenum exhibit spots re* sembling eschars, and perforation of all the coats, and the villous coat of the former is in a maaner destroyed, and reduced to the consistence < f a reddish brown pulp." * * * and that, " it is a general character of this poison, to induce inflamroa- lion ofthe stomach in almost all instances, provided death does not take place imme- diately, whatever be the part to which it is applied." In Cox't Dispensatory, £. 121, it is stated that "on disseetion,"the stomach and bowels are found inflammed, gan- grenous, and corroded, and the blood is fluid—soon after death, livid spots appear on the surface ofthe body, and the nails become blue," &c. These are the symptoms which generally precede and. follow death. Let us bear them in mind and compare them with those presented in the case of MrB. Earls, and with regard to which there is no discrepancy among the witnesses who were present during the time of her illness. A short time after she had eaten her supper, the principal ingredient of which was chocolate, she became sick. She rolled on the bed, appeared to be in great pain, and vomited a good deal. Some mint tea was made for her, and she said, " it burns my heart." Some more was given her, and she drank and si'id, " it is the same as the first,'il is iJitter, it biies me in the throat.'" She called for drink, and when it was given her she could not drink. She called for laudanum, took 50 drops and it did no good. She complained of pain all over, and in the stomach; and, said her mother, "vomited on till she could vomit no longer, and then she gagged on so, till she died." This is the concurrent evidence of Kebecca Sechler, Christiana Earls, Mary Ann Earls, and Susan Earls, as to what immediately preceded death. Shortly after Mrs. E. died, and whilst her body wasyet warm, Mu Mowrey, Mrs. Mangus, Mrs. Page, and other neighbor women came in and they pro. ceeded to bestow that attention which the occasion required. Mrs. Mowrey, in her testimony says, " I mistrusted a little, and when I came to open her bosom, she had a mark as big as the inside of my hand between her breasts, and it was red and blueish like, her breasts were full of milk. She had that night a blue spot on her leg, and next morning she was spotted blue round the neck, and round her nails, and below her eyes," and in this, Mrs. Mowrey is corroborated by all the persons then present. Up to this period it will be recollected, nothing had been known of the purchase of arsenic by John ; but the suddenness ofthe death—the unusual appear- ance ofthe body, and a knowledge ofthe fact, that the domestic tranquillity ofthe deceased and her husband, had for sometime be*n interrupted, led to suspicion, and suspicion to investigation. The Coroner of the county was sent for, and it was de- termined that the corpse should be disinterred. Accordingly Dr. Ludwig, and Dr. Peal of this county, and Dr. Dougal, of Milton, three of our most respectable physi- cians, were summoned to attend on the twentieth of October, at Clinton churchyard. They attended at th^ time appointed ; and 1 shall now detail to you from their eri- tlence, that link in the chain of symptoms, afforded by the post mortem examinatifljl The body, which was identified as Vhat. of Mrs. E*ris, by Di - Dougal, who had been her attending physician at Milton, vas taken into the Haptist ehurch. Thif was on 7'uesd-v, the h.X day *rter h<*r destii. The clothing- being removed from thesaVr \ 93 ject, it presented externally the following appearances—immediately below and be- tween the breasts there was a good deal of discoloration, the skin over the abdomen also looked ofa dark colour, and the abdomen looked depressed and flaccid, and on its inferior part, immediately above the pubis and hench bone, the skin was discolor- ed as it is sometimes seen in incipient decomposition or putrefaction; the posterior parts of the head, neck and back, and also of the hips, were discolored, and of a red appearance. The nails on the fingers, and round the nails, were ofa very dark color, and the back part of the lower extremities was a deep red, occasioned per- haps by the settling of the fluids. These were the most prominent of the external indications; and we shall now draw your attention to the internal evidence of death by poison as presented by dissection ; and of which'I will endeavor to give you a cendensed view. In the right auricle ofthe heart and ventricle, was found a quantity of dark color- ed blood, such as is natural in all cases after death ; but there was also found the same colored blood in the left auricle and ventricle, a thing very unusual and scarce- ly ever to be seen. The external appearance of the stomach indicated the existence &k of intense inflammation, approaching a dark mahogany color, of the most intensity at the lower end—the color was deeper Li some spots than others. The coats of the stomach were like to separate from each other when dissected, and the coats ofthe large intestine were so much affected that they were near separating. The smaller intestines were highly inflamed, and their internal coats softened, and appeared in places to be torn off from the muscular parts surrounding them. The large veins leading to the heart were much distended with dark thick blood, and the pericar- dium or living membrane ofthe heart contained above an ounce and a half of bloody *' serum. The dura mater or covering of the brain was much gorged with blood, as was also the brain itself. The'head was examined externally to ascertain whether there was any injury upon it from violence—rone was found. The veins wherever they occurred were engorged with blood, and there was a general softening of the muscles of the body. The stomach contained none of the'articles which had been taken in as food. This, gentlemen, is a synopsis of the observations made at the church, and although the professional gentlemen were fully satisfied that the stp- mach presented sufficient cause of death, yet suspecting that arsenic would be found in it, they determined to subject its contents to further scrutiny. According- ly the duodenum and stomach were carefully secured and placed in the charge of Mr. Kittoe, then present, and taken to his shop in Muncy. The stomach con- tained about a pint of bloody serum and' mucus, with some detached parts of its internal lining. Mr. Kittoe having furnished the necessary means, he with Drs. Dougal, Ludwig, and Peal, proceeded to make the following experiments:— A portion of the contents of the stomach was mixed with distilled rain water, to which was added some sub carbonate of potash ; the surface being touched with lunar caustic, there was thrown down a precipitate of pale yellow, or straw color, in- dicating the presence of poison. Again, to some of the fluid ot the stomach, com- bined with sub carbonate of potash and rain water, was added a solution of sulphate of copper, and the result was a copious deposite of grass green, called Scheele's green, and equally indicative of the presence of poison. These two experiments were again repeated, substituting only the arsenic ofthe shop, in place of the fluid from the stomach, and the results were precisely similar. Dr. Dougal then took about three ounces of the fluid with him to Milton, ai\d with Mr. Morrison, a good practical chemist, subjected it to a process of analization, a written statement of which has been read to you, and the rcsvtlt of which was the production ofthe pure arsenic in the shape of the arsenical ring ; and what renders this coritlusive is, that the arsenic of the shop, which was submitted to the same tes:, formed a ring which could not be distinguished in appearance from that produced from the fluid of ihe ' Momach. .The specimens have been shown you. We might here safely s'op, but 1 consider u my duty on this part of the case to bring the whole evidence before you, and to make "assurance doubly sure." After the experiments at Muncv, the stomach and contents were put in two bottles carefully sealed up and delivered to Mr. Kittoe, who, under the direction of the Coroner, took them to Philadelphia to have them more fullv and accuiately tested. The experiments were there conducted by D.-. Mitchell, one of the most eminent chemists in the city and well known to the public, fc.si.,iod by Vr. Kittoe who is also an excellent chemist, and who has acquit- ted him'rli handsomely before this court. When the bottles were delivered to'llr. Mitchell,«i Phiti.lelplii.:, It was discovered that a white powder had subsided, whu-.Ii wa-: supposed to lc the s jsp'ec.c J poison. A portion of it w ;is removed into a watch ■99 j?lass and dried by the heat of a spirit lamp; a part of this was then mixed with black flux, put in a glass tube and heated to redness—the product was a fine arsenical ring, which I now produce before you. The tube is marked " Earls—27th October, ISSti —solid found." Arsenic you will understand is, in its pure state, a metallic substance, and when we speak ofthe metallic ring, we speak of it as a production of the arsenic itself, and as the highest test known to science. Some particles of the ring thus formed was removed and put on a live coal and gave out the arsenical odour. It is said to smell like garlic- Other fragments ofthe ring were put into ammonialed sul- phate of copper, and formed a Scheele's green, which was dried, and is now exhibited before you, marked "Dry arsenite of copper." Another portion ofthe same powder was then dissolved in boiling distilled water and the solution put into a glass tube, a drop or two of am;nonjated sulphate of copper added, and it precipitated a Scheele's green. You have the specimen before you, marked" " Earls—arsenite of copper" and hermetically sealed. A part of the same solution was placed in another lube, and a drop or two of ammoniated nitrate of silver added, which threw down a copious canary yellow precipitate- This specimen is marked " Arsenite of silver—Earls." It has become changed in color by exposure to light. Some of the same solution was then tested with lime water anil produced a white flocculent precipitate. The tube is sealed and marked " Earls, Arsenite of lime." The remainder of the solution of the powder was precipitated by a stream of sulphuretted hydrogen gas—the precipitate being a deep sulphur yellow. The specimen is befoie you. Some of this precipitate was then dried mixed with black flux, placed in a glass tube, heated to redness, and the metallic ring again produced. The specimen is marked "Earls—from erpiment." After these results, Mr. Kittoe w?s asked if he was satisfied; and replying that he was, the experiments were closed. I now offer you the last specimen. It is a portion ofthe white powder just as it was taken from the stomach of Catharine Earls, and which proves to be the arsenic itself, pure as it was purchased from the shop. When experiments have been conducted by men so professionally eminent as Dr. Mitchell, it is hardly necessary to quote authorities. I wil', however, for the purpose of showing that the most approved tests known to chemical science have been em- ployed, refer to Ryan's Medical Jurisprudence, p. 221 to 226, and Woodli liachc, p. 23. [Mr A. here read ihe authorities referred to.] According to Dr. Christison, the concurrent indications ofthe three tests by sulphuretted hydrogen, ammoniacal nitrate of silver, and ammoniated sulphate of copper, are all-sufficient for detecting in an infal- lible manner the presence of arsenic. We have gone furtLcir; we have not stopped short of proof absolute ; the production ofthe metal itself. From the wide range which was taken in the cross-examination of our witnesses, I was almost induced to think that the whole field of chemical learning was to be explored, its fundamental truths overturned, and its conclusions shown to be the i.lle phantoms of pedantic brains. Hut lo ! not one position has been attacked by evi- dence—not one principle assailed by authority. The laws which govern our liber- ties and our property, are just what we make them ; but the laws of science are fixed and unalterable. Let me now ask, what a:e ihe objections to be urged against our analysis ? They are few indeed. It has been said that certain vegetables com- bined with the solutions already mentioned, will change the color; and that onions wi 1 produce a green precipitate. This cannot be admitted. It is true they will mix and change the color, but no vegetable will cause a precipitate; and if they did, that precipitate would not produce ameUl. If however, the defendant's counsel intend to insist that Mrs. E. died of eating onions, this hypothesis may be useful to them.. It is said also th'at cinnabar will produce a metallic ring; true, it will. But it must be recollected that this is the only particular in which it can be assimilated to arsenic. When combined with any of the arsenical tests the precipitate is different. The specimen produced, is an argument not very favourable to the exception, and 1 be- lieve there is no evidence to show that Mrs. E. had taken cinnabar. Some pains was taken to induce you to believe that the several tests, which if taken separately might be inconclusive, are therefore equally uncertain when taken together. Dr. Hepburn, whose professional and scientific character is well known to you all, is of a different opinion. He says probabilities may be so multiplied that certainty may be attained ; and that if you "find the metal by the tests, and reduce it back to Scheele's green, yo j have a certainty. All this has been done, and I may here add the declaration of Mr. Kittoe, as applied to the white., powder found in the stomach of Mrs. Earls. " From all the tests taken in conjunction, I should say this is arsenic indubitably." The counsel who opened this cause for the prisoner was pleased to say that ha "reflected aut o.i the physicians, but they weie mistaken." If this were so, why w< 100 it it not praved ? The reputation of the medical gentlemen forbids it. If they wer* mistaken, is it not strange that they should all corroborate each other, and that n»" witnesy could be found to contradict them. But is it not now apparent that the exami- nation of the body, so far as relates to symptoms and appearances, is of secondary im- portance, since the deleterious drug itself was found in the stomach in quantities far more than sufficient to produce death. Had the prisoner attempted to accourr* by evidence or in any rational way for the suddenness ofthe death, the extreme inflam- mation found on dissection, and the existence of arsenic in the stomach, then should we have held ourselves bound to answer; but in the absence of all testimony on these points, surely it will not be expected of us to search after causes which have been sought for in vain by ingenious counsel. I shall close my remarks upon thU part ofthe case by bringing before you the uncontroverted conclusions ofthe several physicians after they had finished their examinations and experiments. Dr. Dougal says " we were satisfied there was sufficient quantity of arsenic in the fluid of the '«»^ atomach to produce death." Dr. Ludwig says, "I believe that death was occa- jj^X ^ sioned in this case by inflammation in the stomach produced by arsenic. I did not ^''^JI^BhJU cover any other cause of death; I examined minutely." Dr. Peal also says, "ihe r*-*a| suits were such as to lead us to believe that the death of the woman was occasioned^! by arsenic; I found no other adequate cause of death." * * » "from the whole examination and from the tests, we concluded positively that there was ar- senic-in the stomach—there was not the least doubt in my mind, not the least." Let me now dismiss a branch of the argument which, to us, who are neither physicians nor chemists, may perhaps grow tedious. Unwilling to re*i on the naked conclu- sions of learned men, 1 have brought before you the theory of symptoms and tests an laid down in the books, and also the prominent facts corresponding with them; you- wtll make your comparisons. But, after all, we are in almost' every department of life obliged to depend on the knowledge of otheis, and you will find it much safer to rely on the conclusions of men whose lives have been devoted to scientific re- search, than to attempt, unassisted by the lights which science affords, to draw your own, which might be at Variance with both facts and experience. The conclusions we ask you to adopt are free from doubt, and I feel persuaded they will accord with your own opinions. There is no contradiction with regard to them, and you are not left to grope your way in the dark mists of uncertainty. I must therefore take this part of ihe case as established beyond the doubt of incredulity itself. The fact then, that Mrs- Earls' death was caused by poison, being distinctly pro\ ■ cd, and there being no pretence of accident or mistake, the belief is forced upon us that it was the wilful and deliberate act of some guilty and abandoned wretch. To point him out, and to fix upon him the mark of the law's just vengeance so clearly, that "he who runs may read," shall be the object of the argument I have yet to offer you. I know it is difficult for the mind accustomed to repose on the peaceful scenes of private life, and move on in harmless quietude, to realize the amount of wickedness with which the world abounds. And often do we shrink back with horror from the necessity of identifying a fellow being with crimes at which our nature shudders. Yet painful as it is, the contingency which has drawn you together imposes it on you as a duty, from which I know you will never swerve. The learned gentleman who opened this cause for the defendant, stated that, al- though he did not admit Mrs. Earls died of poison, yet he would show the criminal agent if there was one ; but he dared not to name the individual. To have done so then, was to have deprived himself of the chances which circumstances and fabri- cated testimony might furnish, of casting the imputation on any one—the defendant cared not whom. It was not among the least ofthe difficulties of counsel to deter- mine on whom they could most successfully shift'the charge of this " most foul and unnatural murder." Hence we see at one time the current of their inquiry bearing liard against the poor old mother, at another forcing itself after the spirit of a depart- ed wife, and pointing to her as ihe unforgiven author of self destruction. The very alternative to which they resort, shows their conviction ofthe cause of death, and the necessity of fixing the impress of guilt on some one not on trial. Before taking up. the testimony more immediately connected with the prisoner himself, let us examine the subterfuges which he has interposed. First, then, as to the old woman, Christiana Earls, who it is insinuated was the person who wilfully administered the poison. She is the mother of the prisoner* resided in his family, and nursed his wife at the time of her confinement. She ap pears before this court in the character of a witness, and I shall endeavor to show that her own testimony, and all the circumstances which con.-iec; :.tt with thit 101 cause, are absolutely inconsistent with any intentional participation in the death »f l»er daughter in-law lier v^iy appearance before you precludes the idea. Pat>t three score and ten, and bent down with the infirmities of a^e, her years should be her protection. At a .time of life when all her faculties are impaired —when all those inordinate feelings and passions, which :.re ever the incentives to vice, have subsided—when all her energies were wasted; surely there can be none so bold (save her affectionate son) to charge her with the commission of so foul a crime. Let me ask for the old woman, the benefit of that, principle which we have conced- et^to the defendant —that innocence is always presumed till guilt is proved. And I ask for the proof. From the beginning to* the end of the voluminous testimony 3pread upon our notes, there is not one sentence tending to implicate her, save that which fell from the lips .of this hopeful son, who tnid his little daughter at the jad that " it wus that old bitch hi- mother done it." Hut she was not then present, nor . is his declaration any evidence ;>'' ilu fact. There is not the slightest evidence tu Jpihow that she and Catharine were ori bad terms, or that there was ever any diil'er- . Cvence between them ; o . the cintraty, there seems to have been a good understanc- . '. i.ng, for site treated Catharine with the greatest attention and kindness during her rfESB?Srri»nes9. If the old worn u> kne* a ly thing if tne poison, is it not remarkable that »>he should make no effort to conce.il the f.ct that she hid pupared the very food :*%tF itl which it is alleged the poison was mixed, and tint she should have feigned no excuses for Catharine's sickness. In her testimony she =.ays, " 1 made the viciua's Ka'y ate her dinner with a good appeti'.e—she drank all the chocolute—t>he ap- peared well then, O, la, I guess *■•».' After this I went up stairs and. s*ept a littlv, ■ then gathered a little wood and made a nice fire so she could i-K up that I could make her bed. I took a carpet and double;! it four times and laid it before the lire and set a chair on it; ;-.>n she said I will get up-1 was going \» say she should hav« stockings on, but I saw she had a p tir on- I went and got a cloak and put it round her—gave her the chill, and made the bed. She then got up and_ went to bed again." Now this happened the very afternoon before Catharine died ; and how- much of conscious innocence does the simple statement evince on the part of the old woman- • How easy would it have been to have assigned a different cause for Catharine's death, and instead of saying she was well, to have said she complained of being sick—that she had imprudently ms^ from her bed wi'hout sufficient cov- ering—that she sat in a cold room without fire, without any «hing on her feet or around lirp, and had thus caught a violent cold- Al this could irave been said with- out the fear of detection, as there wis no person there at the tune but herself—John having gone up to the dam with the children. A-ai", she *utes that she made the chocolate for supper, poured it out, set it on the stove, got the waiter, pot a J lh« articles on it, that she carried it up stairs and set it on a chair at the bed side, ana that Katy ate hearty, saying " O mother how good that chocolate was," and drank it jlll. Is it possible to reconcile this with guilt? She well knew that it was alleged the arsenic was mixed with the chocolate which Catharine drank for her supper ; vet she here makes admissions which, were it on her own iri.d, and they were prov- ed by another, might be almost conclusive against her. ILiore Mrs. Kails had lin- ished her suoper, the old lady came down stairs, and she says, "after a little■ 1 heard Katy vomit, and I let all Hy and ran to the head of 'he stairs and said, Lord of mer- flPcy how comes it that you vomit so," * * • " nr.y be Mat chocolate hurt *** you and made you sick." Now, if the old woman mixed the arsenic, it is beyond comprehension, and without ihe p-ilc of probability, that she should he Lie hrst tw point to the article that contained it ; and the first to ascribe the effects to the pro- per cause. If she had wickedness enough to do the ad, she would have had tlesigii enough to conceal it. !f she had determined on the death of Catharine, she would not have been the first to arrest the promts of her work, by suggesting remedies for relief, and to stop the vomiting. Yet you find her ihe moment she sees how Catharine is affected, recommending spear mint tea, and when it was prepared by John, and tasted bitter, she thought it must be r-epper mint, and obstrveel,/ 1 knew I had some spear mint, and I went to my drawer and found it right away ; it memr.A as it was to be so." You will recollect, gentlemen, how the tear of gratitude started in the poor old woman's eye, and her utterance was almost choked m the expression ofthe last sentence, "it seemed as it was to be so." Shi. looked on it as almost a special intervention of Providence that she should, at the moment of necessity, be di- reeled to*he very place where the article she wished was to t>« found, when per- nam.it had beer, for months forgotten. • •♦«„„». ' u ia in vain to look for evidence Jgahst.th. *!. woawm Every eirci.tmsts.ncc ,» 11W which we can advert makes her innocence more apparent. We f»nd her at one time, importuning John on the impropriety of his conduct in running after strange women, and at the request of Catharine, desiring him to stay at ho.ne. And what is the consequence ? Catharine, on the supposition that shf had been the prompter, is whipped by her husband. This was strongly calculated to beget feel- ings of sympathy for the one, and dislike for the other j for few mothers are disposed to tolerate the libertinism of a son. Shortly after Cathaiine was buried, th'r old lady says there svas some talk about taking Catharine up, and she supposed as she was the mother, they wanted to keep it from her, and (knowing nothing ofthe cause at this time) she said something about it to John. His reply 1 will notice hereafter ; but why did he not then charge her with the act if lie thought her guilty. And why was it, when he sent, for his mother to come ami see him at Mr. Hoffman's at Muncy, where he was a prisoner, and when.she met him in the bar-room exclaiming " my God, John wliat have you done ?"—that he did not even cast a shade of suspicion on her, but " told her to be still and make no noise there." Yet he was in possession/^ *i of all the information at this time, that he had when he made the charge to his child- ren at the jail. How are we to account for the fact, that in the whole of Christiana Karls' testimony there is not the slightest shade of coloring in favour.of herself? • No disposition to withhold or conceal anything ; nor is there the least desire evinced to implicate any other person whatever—not even that poor degraded wretch who is ready to tie the halter round the neck of his own mother. What an opportunity was presented here for retaliation ? If she were so lost to all the feelings of humanity ; so regardless of all consequences as to conceive and consummate the murder of a child; she would not stumble at a perjury, which would have for its reward the double ob- ject of revenge against her accuser, and of averting from her own head the penalties ofthe law. 1 would ask the jury, what advantage had this old woman to promise herself upon the unfurtur.ate event which has happened? Was it the charge of a family of small children, and the care of an infant babe ? surely this was not desirable. Yet, from the testimony of Kdith Barker, you find what the affectionate outbreak- ing:* of tile poor old grandmother's heart were, when it was proposed to put the child out to nurse. " How can I pari" said she " with my little babe—Katy is gone." And when they persuaded her she was too old to take care of it, she yielded with reluctance, saving " it is ha id to pirt with the child and Katy too — i.ow tbey are all gone at once-" In scrutinizing the actions of men, we are apt to look after the mo- lives that govern them, lint what motive can we attribute to one who is old and decrepit—who has arrived at that age, when ihe rudeness of angry passions and vindictive feelings waste themselves away in the feebleness of worn out nature ? who can have few desires lo gratify, and few demands to make upon society, before she must, in the course of that providence which is dispensed to all mankind, be called to answer at the tribunal of art almighty and unerring judge. I will only add in support of what has been already adverted to, her solemn declaration on oath, that she " never heard a breath about the poison ;" " God knows," said she "I never* saw any poison about the house ti> my knowledge." And there is not one particle of evidence to show that she even knew of the purchase of aisenic by John, or of the purpose for which he pretended to use it. Believing >vou are satisfied with the inno- cence ofthe old woman, arid that it is wholly unnecessary, I shall extend my remarks do further at present on this part of ihe case. . TCjfat The next position taken by defendant's counsel, and on which they seem lo place .A* great reliance, U, that Catharine Earls took the poison herself, and voluntarily des- troyed her own life. I believe it never happens that the person disposed to commit suicide calls upon an accomplice. We therefore look upon the ground now assum- ed as a bold contradiction of the first step in the defence j and we must be allowed to consider the arguments in its support, as an unconditional release of the old wo- man. The criminality then rests between Earls and his wife -, and fearful indeed is the attitude of the defendant. But like the drowning man, be catches at the slightest particle that floats on the surface with as eager a grasp, as though it afford- ed security. After the character which has been given to the witnesses called lo sustain the charge of suicide by the deceased, it would perhaps be unnecessary to say any thing by way of refutation. '• We will however pass in review the evidence manufactured for this point. Diantha Marinus states, that when she lived with her uncle John Earls, " he was hunting some papers pne.day, and got her (the deceased) to look over them —he lifted a paper out ofthe drawer, and it appeared to me it had about two talle spoon i full in it ■, he asked her what it w^a--shc snatched it out of his lu;id and said she 103 tnevv wlwt it was." Agr.'n the witness states that she " said nothing about its being ^oison that day, nor for a couple of days afteV; she did not show it to me. Mary Ann Earls was by 4 Earls kept the key of that drawer himself." A day or two after this, " the children were playing around the door, and Mrs. Callahan's cow knocked one f' of them over, and she (the deceased) swore she would poison the cow. I asked her where she would get the poison ? She said that was poison that John lifted out of the drawer. She got it with the intention to poison Maria MoritE; and if she did not get revenge of her, she would take something to put an end to her own life." Nov the inference lo be palmed on the jury is, that this paper, the contents of which the witness never saw, contained arsenic; cwo table spoons full of arsenic ! enough to have killed all the people in this court house! Where would the deceased have got it ? She was never kno'wn to have purchased any, nor would any Druggist have sold [. «^ ker that quantity. She could not have taken it from John, or he would have missed i', and it is not pretended that at that time, which the witness states was the beginning yjffipof last May, he had any. And how, pray, did it get into John's drawer, which was ^jjgf^ilocked, a»d of whic^t he kept the key ? It appears he asked her what it was, and ,■■' Rave it no further attention. Why was not his suspicion then aroused? You will .X recollect, when John S. Dykens suggested that his wife might have taken it, "Yes," Said he, " Dykens that's all that troubles me. We lived disagreeably together and she often threatened to put herself out of the way. 1 was often afraid, going home at night from fishing, of finding her acotpse and that I might be blamed for it." Now if this story we're true, most certainly he would have suspected the paper referred to^ and examined its contents. The only reason Mrs. Marinus had for supposing the paper contained poison, was frcm what she makes Katy Earls say, when the cow knocked over one of the children * and in this I shall show you from the testimony of Mary Ann Earls, that she was mistaken. Indeed she is not only contradicted by others, but she contradicts herself in many particulars. For instance, being very desirous to make out the deceased an intemperate woman, she says on her cross- examination, speaking of Earls and his wife, " I know of no other cause of quarrel- ling but intoxication." Forgetting that she had previously stated, that the deceased had threatened to poison Maria Moritz, and that she had slruck Maria with a pole, because of the intimacy of the latter with the husband of the deceased. No one knew better than Diantha what the real cause of quarrel was. She had seen Earls ^taking Maria Moritz home in a sleigh ; and when his wife followed them asfrras "Mangus', he get out and put her under the fountain pump, in Ihe dead of winter, and tore the clothes from her back ; all this had she seen and much more, and yet pretended she knew of no cause of difference but intoxication ! But who is Diantha Marinus ? She is, gentlemen, a lady who seems to despise the dull monotony of a married life, "and to have'determined to do business on her own account ; for she tells.usshe "dont know where her husband lives;" althuu^h he has be«n loitering about the court from day to day, and has been examined before jou as a witness*. The firm 1 suppose has been dissolved, and each is "fishing on their own hook.'* She is'the same lady whose character for truth is declared lo be bad, by all her neigh* hours. 1 will now give Mary Ann Earls' versioH of the paper found in the drawer. She says " Papa went to the drawer one day —he picked up a blue paper and asked ■■* mamma what it was, and she took it out of his hand. She did not say anything. She .' . »did not tell him what it was. Mrs. Marinus was by." This is a very different reia* tion of the affair, and yet it is no doubt the simple truth. The deceased neither snatched the paper, nor did she say anything about it. Mary Ann further says, "I was present when Mrs. Callahan's cow knocked over ihe child, but did hoi hear mamma say anvlhing about h." Now this is a direct contradiction of what is sworn lo by Mrs. Marinus, who predicates her whole knowledge of the paper's containing poison, oh this conveisadon with the deceased about the cow ; and yet it is now proved by a person equally entitled to belief, that no such conversation took place. The next witness in order, is James M'Coy. He says he topped in at Earls'to get a drink ot whiskey, and truly his appearance indicated his fondness for it. "I usked her" (the deceased") said he, "how she was ? she said she was well; she wished to Almighty Ciod she had something to put her out of ihe way, for she was troubled in this woild." This was aheut ihe middle of August last. He adds, " I was not there more lhan fifteen minutes; this w-as all ihe conversation we had at th^ tune- She was not making complaints against any one. ^he *. as no more serious in this thai) other conversations." This is the amount of M'Coy's testimony ; and can it be believed, that without anything to lead to it, a \vorr.:.n would break out in such "M i* • mn with ah Hie fellow who hid.just called in for "a drink of w:hisk*y?"'l'ut even M'Coy did not think there was any thing serious in what she said. If it liad been true that on the first of May, the deceased had two table spoons full of arsenic, *s Mrs. Marinus would insinuate, why shoud she in the middle of August afterwards, wish for " something" to put herself out ofthe way r It does not appear that in the mean time she had ei'.her poisoned herself oi' Maria Moritz. With regard to the testimony of Sabina Moritz, it bears en its face the stamp of Falsehood. To repeat it is to refute it. She says that " two or three weeks before Katy Earls' death, she asked me if I wool j come and nurse her when she got sick- that if I would come she would give me some poison and I should give it to her af- ter she got sick. I told her if she had such bad thoughts I would not come. Says *he if"you dont come I have trunks and chests, I will have them close enough to the bed that I can take it myself." • * • "Before my child is a week old you will hear that 1 am dead." Sabina further says that "all the reason the deceased gave, was, she liked the liquor so and she could not help but drink it." A more bare f;ced tale of falsehood was never sworn to in a court of justice, and yet it is endorsed by the oath of Henrietta Moritz. If the story were in*?, why did they not mention it to John Earls or some of his family ?—They knew well the state of affair* that existed between their sister Maria and Earls, and would undoubtedly have communicated it to him ; yet they say tney only told their mother, Henrietta, and Maria. Now if Maria knew it, is it not as curtain as holy writ that she would have told it to Earls, with whom she was in daily, aye and nightly intercourse—and if he knew it, is it not also as certain as that the light of henven shines upon us, that he would (if innocent) when he saw his wife suddenly taken ill, vomiting and in the agonies of death, have suggested his fears ofthe cau*e, and informed those present of what he had heard, particularly as he pretends to have had forebodings of his own f Yet he was then silent as the grave on the subject of poison, hypocritically attributing his wife''? illness to her taking cold. Are you able, gentlemen, to be- lieve—can j'ou conceive lor a moment that Katy Earls would call on one of the Mo- ritz family to nurse her—a family, of whose memotrsshe loathed *l\e very sight, and who was the cause of all the misery of her life. And are you ready to accept for truth and verity the reason which the deceased is made to give for poisoning her self, to wit: because she loved the liquor so well. I am inclined to think it would be the first instance of suicide by arsenic for such a reason. The de\otee to drunk- enness usually prefers death from the poison he loves best. Nothing can be more evident than the effort of all ihise witnesses to make Katy's fondness for liquor, the cause of disturbance between her husband and her, when they well know it is not true, and are fully aware that the disgusting- and shameful conduct of Earls with Ma- ria wa« the whole and only cause. That there has been a most grand-and magnificent sceme of perjury here, planned 5ind designed by the prisoner to save himself from deserved punishment, is too obvi- ous to authorize a doubt. The curtain has been raistd and the part fhat each was to play is distinctly seen- Diantha Marinus was to prove that the deceased had the poison in her possession: M'Coy was to prove she wanted something to put her out of the way, as she was troubled in ibis worl I; Sab'm, and Henrietta Moritz were to swear to the very time she intended to commit the act, and that she was to have a chest or trunk by the bed side to keep the poison in, so that she could take it her- self. And to crown all, Edith Marker was to swear that after the death of Katy Earls, she found in a trunk near ihe bed uf the deceased, a paper containing a white powder supposed to be poison :—thus ihe whole plan of defence was thought to be romplete. Hut alas! all human calculations are uncertain. The scheme has been. frustrated and the chain broken. The actors had forgotten their parts. Mrs. Mari-> mis not only contradicts herself, but she is contradicted by Mary Ann Earls in TeL- tion to the most materia) part of her testimony. And as for Sabina and Henrietta Moriiz you will recollect that they by no means agreed in their relation ofthe same facts. Wtth regard to Edith Marker, to her credit be it spoken, she refused to sup- ply for them the last link in the chain of falsehood which had been forged, although it was evident that this was the very purpose for which she was called. She ought to have been a wit.less in chief for the prisoner, yet it was not till the common- wealth closed their rebutting evidence, and proved that there was no trunk or box rear the bed ofthe deceased, tb>t ihey forced Edith to the stand and endeavored to extort rrom her by t'^.- most direct and pointed questions, the facts to which 1 have referred. l)ut all would not do. When on oath hhe would not swear to ttiat which »h( did not kno v. Instead of supporting the defence, her testimony strongly corro- ni5 Watesfhat of the commonwealth in an important particular, as I shall showpr*- aently when 1 have occasion to refer to it more fully. But, gentlemen, ought I not to be relieved from the necessity of commenting on the testimony of witnesses who are proved to be unworthy of belief. We have shown you by half a dozen persons of respectability, that the character of Diantha Marinus, Sabina Moritz, Hennett* Moritz and Alexander Marinus, for truth and veracity, is worse than worthless, and that they cannot be believed. Never have I witnessed such an absolute demolition ot character in any case. And what is most extraordinary is, that with all the zeal and vigdance which has been exefcised for the prisoner, not one individual could be found willing to give even a tolerable reputation to the persons just named. Cer- tamly, then, not any thing they have said on this, or any other point, will have the least weight in your deliberations. _ Some consequence was attempted fo be given to a conversation which took place between the deceased and Zachariah Welshanse, who had been a neighbor of hers ■(.*. when she lived :n Milton. Mr. Welshanse happened to be at Mrs. Earls' house about two or three Weeks before her confinement, and after conversing awhile he asked her when she was coming to Milton. -She replied that "she never expected to see Milton ahve again." They then conversed on other subjects. "She was cheerful and used the expressions mildly, and was not complaining of anything that day." Mr. Welshanse adds, that " she was not very serious about it." Yet this is the lan- guage that is construed into a determination to take away her own life. Again, when about a month before her confinement, she gave her daughter Mary Ann, a piece of calico for a frock, saying she thought " she would not live to make it up for herself,'? this too is magnified by the powerful lens of imagination intcthe purpose of self des- truction ; notwithstanding Mary Ann declares she " never heard her mother say any thing about Wishing herself dead" Having considered the evidence adduced by the prisoner's counsel to show that the deceased took the arsenic herself, let us bring before you the circumstances op- posed to tins View of the case. The very idea of suicide is most abhorrent to our feelings, and we cannot contemplate it without supposing a diseased state of mind. It is oftener found to be the offspring of fancied, than of real grievances, and men are never tempted to the execution of such a purpose, unless under the immediate influ- ence of some real or imaginary uneasiness, operating at the very moment ofthe act. Such was not the case with the deceased. She was well, apparently happy and con- versed with cheerfulness to those around her, and even after she had drunk the fatal draft, unconscious of its deadly qualities, she complaisantly observed "O mother that chocolate was very good." I think it may be laid down as a principle, that the person who openly threatens to take away his own life, never intends to doit. And when notice is given ofthe time and the occasion, upon which it will be done, tber* is no ground for apprehension or alarm. It is not a work that is done by appoint- ment. The disordered and melancholy mind, sick with all around, shuns the gaze of an unfriendly world, and in lonely horror seeks for hidden places to enact the tra- gic scene. That Catharine Earls might have had some fears that she would not live through her confinement may possibly be true.'lt is one of the most severe trials at- tendant on the life of a female ; and too often carries with it the most melancholy presentment. It is impossible for female weakness entirely to shake off the gloom that hovers round and precedes an occasion of ..this kind. It is of the wisdom of Providence that it should be so; for he has said to the woman, "I will greatly; multiply thy sorrow and thy conception ; in sorrow shall thou bring forth children." Doctor Power states, that " writers on the subject of pregnancy, universally say that it produces despondency." And, "judging from my own experience," said he, " it ris not infrequent for women not long before confinement, to anticipate an unhappy result, or death." Dr. Ludwig also states, that " women frequently before con- finement apprehend that there will be an unfavorable issue." Why then should the deceased be exempted from feelings inseparable from her nature and common to her sex ? When we recall to mind the severe treatment she received from her husband —that he had cruelly beaten her with the horse lines not a month before, and that he had threatened to lay her asleep ; there was ev«ry thing to impress most deeply ■)ii her feelings the situation to which she was shortly to be exposed. No wonder then that she should sometimes speak despondingly, and it is thus we account, most -ationally too, for the conversation wilh Mr. Welshanse. and with her daughter Mary Ann, about the frock. Hut the hour of travail is now jiasij ihe fcloom is dispersed, 'he weight is removed, and she fi-.ids heist If the happy molhei of jd infant h:be. if there be a moment in life when tv: brought, but with it n > relief. Ker mother asks, "how comes it that you vomit so?" She replies, "mother 1 dont know." When everything had fail- ed, hear her exclamations of distress and despair, "O, Lord, its gone so far I can get no help." She was indeed beyond the power of mortal help. I ask you, gentle- men, to say, is not this evidence of a desire to live andnot to die ? If the latter was her choice, why not meet the doom she had fixed for herself, before the birth of her infant, and thus escape the pains of parturition ? And as to the means, why not take the laudanum ? it is that to which females most frequently resort for such pur- poses ; and it is shown she had it in her possession. . 1 will endeavor to convince you, from the evidence, that it was impossible for the deceased to have taken the arsenic, without the knowledge and even assistance of those present. That it was taken with the chocolate is indisputable. It was the only article of her food with which it could be mingled, and this was drank in the presence of Earls and Olivia Sechler. It had been brought up by the old womsn and placed on a chair at the side of the bed. How then could the deceased have thrown the arsenic into the chocolate without their observation, and where could she have kept it. If in a paper or vial it would have been discovered. And how could she get it—she had not been out of the room from ihe time of her confine- — ment, and only once out of her bed. Beside, there was neither trunk, chest or any- ^ ' thing else in the room or near the bed, where the article could have been conceal- - ed. The truth of this is established by the testimony of both Mrs. Callahan and Edith liaiker. The former says, "when 1 went there when the woman was dead, there was no trunk or box near the bed." * * •« The day I dressed the baby, I X got a trunk out of the other room—the old woman or little girls brought it in and sec n on a chair." This Mrs. Callahan states contained the clothes prepared tor the intent, all neat, clean and in good order. There was nothing else in it except half a sii«et of white paper, and a piece of paper that once had pins in it. She examin- ed u carefully. Mrs. liarkt/ corroborates Mrs. Callahan in the fact th.d the trunk w .c!v cOnt.-.iued the child's c,L-ihes, was in tho room adjoining where tne deceased i'.iy. She kir;- ■:■■ iyt because she had gone to the trunk /or the clothes on the day of the burial, Bnt '!■«■ furlhfT tit:tt-;s. v-dien put almos> on the rack for the purpose of wrir-j£i:>£; iron*, her ;. slate ofL'.-ts that i'.d not exist, th.d she saw in Ihe trunk a pa- 107 per either blue or brown, and she did not recollect which ; she picked it up, said what is this, and laid it down again without opening it.—"On tho outside ofthe pa- per there was something that looked -whitish like buckwheat flour; it had either a white or blue string ; it was just rolled up and whether it was tied or not I cant say ; whether there was anything in it or not I cannot say ; and whether the paper get the dust from the bottom cf the trunk, 1 cannot say, for I did not take mucii notice." Andin her cross-examination she adds, " it is likely it was a paper that pins had been in." However little there was lo authorize it, much was expected from Edith. Barker, and the disappointment was extreme. It was thought she would fini-h out and put the cap sheaf on the evidence of the Moritz's. But how manifest the fail- ure ! If the paper contained arsenic, it could not be that which deprived Mrs. Earls of life, as it was found after her death. And if the paper used by her, how did she get it, and how did she return it back to the trunk ? Ir there was anything suspicious about the paper.it was in the defendant's power to have brought it lo court ; and its non production is a strong argument against the inference for which his counsel contend. There is not, gentlemen, one spark cf truth in this dark in- sinuation against the deceased. It is one of the blackest of calumnies, got up by the prisoner as a dernier resort for the purpose of saving himself, oy casting re proach on her whom he had robbed of life, and would now rob of character too. That she was innocent ofthe crime imputed to her, we have the most decided proof, and that, which, in this case, is irrefragable. We have the solemn declarations of the only man on earth who knew, made at a time when reason was at home—when calm reflection guided, and when all his words weie weighed—we have the decla- ration of the prisoner himself. His daughter Susan, who visited him at tire jail, anxious to know the cause of her mother's death, says, " I asked papa if he thought mamma poisoned"herself." He said "no .'" " I said who did it." Said he, " it was that old bitch my mother." Yes, gentlemen, the defendant himself exculpates the deceased, and it is only when he has failed successfully to implicate hisoged moth- er, that he stabs at the dead body of his wife. So far I have said nothing of the more than ordinary inducements of the deceased, to hold fast on life. She had just given birth to an infant babe, for which she had prepared with all a mother's care. She had round her a family of children whom she loved, and whom she always treat- ed, as the witnesses say, with the greatest kindness. And what had she to promise herself by rushing uncalled for into the presence of her Maker? Was it that Maria Moriiz should become the mistress of her children, and instil her corrupted moralu into their minds ? No, it was the last thought she would have ever entertained. She would have lived if only lo disappoint the hopes of her who of all others she had reason to loath and despise. The three main grounds ofthe defence, have now been noticed in a general way, and may again incidentally be taken up. With regard to the first, I must take it for granted th*t you believe the death of Catharine Earls was caused by arsenic. If so, it remains only to determine the guilty agent. It is admitted that there was no per- son present at the time the arsenic must have been administered, except the de- fendant, his mother, an 1 the children. There is no pretence of even suspicion against the children. The necessity therefore on the part ofthe defendant, of tshowiug either that his wife took the poison herself, or that her mother gave it, was impera- tive, in order to resist the conclusion which must inevitably follow a want of such proof. The counsel have undertaken to maintain these positions. If they have failed to do so; and if the commonwealth has shown to your satisfaction, as 1 con- ceive they have, ;hat neither of them has, or can be sustained; the guilt of the pri- soner results as a matter of course, and is as clear as demonstration en make it. 1 shall now proceed to consider the evidence more directly connected wiih the prisoner himself, and of the circumstances which esablishes his guilt. You are not to expect in a case like ihe present,, direct and positive testimony; that would be unreasonable and against all experience. Of the whole catalogue of crimes which the darkesi mind could conceive or engender, none is so easy of concealment as the administration of poison. The man who pledges you in the social glass—the servant who waits on your person ; and she who does the honors of your table ; may equally hold your life at the pleasure of their capricious wiil ; and whilst in the exercise of the most kindly office towards you, may execute their envenoiutd purpose and secretly blot you from existence. The culprit who plo-.s and carries lino effect ihe destruction of his fellow man, never calls witnesses on the occasion ; and his iniquity is only lo be ferreted out by tin: few evidences which precaution may have forgotten, ^r ignorance led e^o-sod. " It u eost.iitially necessary to lire security of auntiiud ifl* ihat juries should eonvict when they can do so safely and conscientiously, upon eir- eoinstantial evidence ; and that it nhould be well known and understood that th« secrecy with which crimes are committed, will not secure impunity to the criminal,"' 2 Starkie, 962. Keeping in view the doctrines which govern this kind of evidence, I will endeavor to convince you that the facts bring the prisoner withlp the princi- ples which authorize a conviction. The purchase and possession ofthe poison—the behavior ofthe prisoner on the night of his wife's decease—his cruelty and threats towards her—his declarations on being arrested—his'attempts to escape, and the motive by which he was actuated, form such an array of coinciding circumstances, as must produce in the mind of every unprejudiced man the utmost moral certainty. On the day of the last general election, the prisoner purchased arsenic at the store of Bruner & Dawson in !iSuncy. This fact is rendered certain by the subsequent admission of Earls himself/ The time he selected to enquire for the article w^ mosi propitious to his purpose, and showed that his design vyas properly matured. It was at a moment when the store was full of people, the clerks much engaged in the hurry of business, and when his demand was not likely to attract much attention. That he managed most dexterously is evident from the difficulty we have had, inde- pendent of his own confessions, to prove the purchase, although the store was crowd- ed with men. Francis Weiser, the cle»k, was only able lo say that on the day uf the election when he was very busy and the store full, Earls asked him for an article on the medicine side of the store, which he immediately gave him, but could not re- collect what it wa«. David Starrick, was in the store, and he can only recollect that "Earls came in and asked if they had any ratsbane," to which the clerk answered "yes." The testimony of these two witnesses together, make out the fact, when that of either would have been insufficieat. Now had the purchase been made of the clerk when alone, his recollection no doubt would have been perfect; as was that of John S. Carter, with regard to what was purchased of him- The time then selected for the purchase.was in accordance with the design cf the prisoner, in whose hands we now find the means necessary to accomplish his object. It is laid down among the elementary principles that, " the usual connections between the conduct ofa criminal agent and the supposition of his guilt are of too obvious a na- ture to be dwelt upon. The seeking for opportunities fit for the occasion—the pro- viding ofptison, or instruments of violence in a secret and clandestine manner—the subsequent concealment of them, attempts to divert the course of inquiry, or pre- vent investigation as to the cause of death, not unfrequently excite just cause of sus- picion ; above all, the restless anxiety of a mind conscious of guilt, very frequently prompts the party to take measures for his security which eventually supply the strongest evidence of his criminality," 1 Starkie, 493. These principles will apply with peculiar force to the prisoner. The opportunity he sought far was the confine- ment of his wife ; he had provided the poison, and concealed its purchase from his family on his return from Muncy ; for his mother swears that she never knew ofjtojf being in the house. On the day after the election, Catharine Earls was confined, and was more than usually well for the occasion. On the next day after her con- finement, about noon, the old woman asked the deceased what she would have for dinner, and proposed to make some tea or chocolate. The deceased replied it would be too much trouble, but if chocolate was made she would take some, as she was fond of it. The old woman prepared the dinner, and after the table was sel, she waa surprised to see that John was going away, and had given the children "pieces." And she observed " why la, John, where are you going. I hive made chocolate, the children are hungry, and they all like it.y He answered, "I am going up to the dam with the little boys." Now, why-Earls should leave home at that particular time and not return till dark, is a maltev which might justly excite surprize, and forms, as I shall presently show, a link in the chain that binds him. Whether he was now toiled in his purpose by the approach of Mrs. Callahan, (who arrived at the house a few minutes after) as no doubt he had been by the presence of strangers and want of opportunity at the time of the confinement, I pretend not to say. The morning after the confinement would not answer, for then the sickness and death must occur in the course ofthe day, and the neighbors must be called in ; at noon, for the same reason, and because of the presence of Mrs. Callahan, he must desist. But night comes and with it John returns, and for the first time he finds his family alone, and all things favorable. It was now dark and he came in and asked if sup- per was most ready ? His mother replied " yes, I'll only go and take Katy's up, Wid then we can eat." " O," said he, " Katy dont want to eat yet till after a little —till after we eat." Hovy he knew this, his mother could not tell; for the remark 169 was made immediately on his entering the house ; he had net yet been up sl after whilmg away the time from twenty to twenty-five minutes, he enquires, "where is the old woman lying ?" Mrs. Callahan heard him, and asked what is the matter ? " O, s»ys he, Katys' took bad, she has caught cold." Mrs. Cal- lahan replied, "she could not catch cold, for the room was warm when 1 left there." I ask wny should Earls assign this reason for his wife's illness, when he knew it was false; and he had pretended no such thing to Mrs. Sechler when he called on her. And why should he waste away his \\me in idle talk with Mr. Callahan, when he knew that every moment's delay must hasten the end of his wife ? It was because he wished lo keep back relief, and let his potent drug perform its work effectually, and without the presence of witnesses to repeat the story of her suffering. Mrs. Calla- han threw on her cioak and proceeded with him, enquiring at the same time if Mrs. E. was bad. " Yes said he," " she is very bad—she is vomiting." He had detain- ed so long he might now tell the truth, as no doubt he thought it was then too late to do any good, and he was right ; for before they reached his house he was met by hishtde daughter wilh that, which, though distressing to his children, was grateful intelligence to him. " t'ap, m >ther is dead !" What a heart rending announce- ment would this have been to a fond and affectionate husband ! Bui to tails it was expected, and only di'ew forth the careless and apathetic reply of" hoot, no 1" Mrs. Callahan then ran ahead, leaving Earls behind, and when she arriyed at ihe house, she found Mrs Earls on her bed of stra.v, but the vital spark had fied. In ihe mean- time Earls was doubtless drowning the remorse of his g-iilty soul in the whiskey brought from Callahan's; for when he came in he overacted his part. " When he got within three or lour steps of the head of the stairs he bawled out; and when he got on the floor where the corpse lay, he gave some terrifying stamps and blas- phemed," using language too profane to be here repeated. But you -.v ill recollect that the acuie eye of Mrs. Sechler delected the counterfeit. She says, "his con- duct did not appear to me to be that of real grief, but appeared to oe forced an 1 affected; he would appearingly cry out, but I did not see any tears." I submit, gen- tlemen, whether you have ever in the whole circle of your acquaintance, even amongst the most ignorant and wicked classes of society, saw real sorrow manifest- ed in the same way. Yet with all his affected grief, Mrs. Sechler and Mis. Callahau both say, that he never went near the bed, nor did he at any tune while they were lucre go to look at his wile. His guilty conscience was pernaps already alarmed, and he dared not look on the pale countenance of her whom he had murdered, lest he. might betray some emotion in the presence of those whose suspicious were eve.i then awakened. Another circumstance here is worthy of notice. While Mrs. Cal- lahan was standing at the bedside looking at the "dead woman," she caught hold of ihe little girl by the arm. There was something in her manner which arrestee. the attention of the prisoner, for said she, " he stood and looked as 1 thought at Mary Ann and me." At the same moment, Mrs. Sechler says, "I saw the tea run- ning towards me; I looked up, and Earls was facing the tin cup at the fire which was upset. He was standing quiet and appeared to oe paying attention to what Mrs- Callahan was saying to Mary Ann." The tea was then swept into the fire, and Mrs. Callahan sitting down beside Mrs. Sechler observed, " Mrs. Scolder is not this tersL- Ill We ? This im contained the list ofthe herb tea, the rest had been thrown out m the window Now, why Earls should throw over this tea, your minds can have but little d.fnculty to determine. There is no ground for supposing it an accident ; the prisoner made no such pretence at the time, and it can only be accounted for under the supposition that it also contained a portion of the arsenic intended for his wife. 1 here is not a single po.nt in which I am able to contemplate the conduct of the prisoner, without be.ng forcibly struck with the truth of that corruption, said to be inherent in our nature and ofthe total depravity to which we may be reduced in the aosence of moral and religious influence. Behold him in the midst of his family, when „one are present but his aged mother and his little children, at a time when ins kindest care and attention was demanded by the situation of her he had sworn to cherish in sickness and in health-see him place the poisoned bowl before the wile ot his own bosom-and see that unsuspecting wife, before his own eyes, drink trie lep rous dishlment» to its very dregs ! Good Heaven ! it is enough to « make the angels weep." The office of the assassin is honorable compared to the enven- omed sting of this secret crawling viper, had the cowardly wretch stood over her with hi? drawn dagger and said, " this hour shall be your last," then might she have had one poor chance for life ; she might have pointed to the infant at her side , she might have reminded him ofthe protestations of his early love; an imploring tear might yet have reached his heart , or she might have cast one longing look to heaven and said, " Fatner, if it be thy will, let this cup pass from me!" But such was not the tender mercy of the prisoner ; he had prepared the poisoned chalice for her lips. ana he determined she should drink and die. You hive been already told of the admission by Earls, that he had purchased ar- senic at Muncy. This admission was made at the time of the arrest, and without any inducement being held out to him whatever. He said to Jacob Hogendobler John Green and others, " By G-d I know what 1 bought; 1 bought ratsbane, and they may hang me and be d----d." He was there cautioned against using such language, as the persons present might be witnesses against him ; but he'repeated it, spying, " he had bought ratsbane and he would buy it again, and he had a ri-ht to do what he pleased with it after he had it-thev might take him to jail or to h—1, and they might hang him and be d----d." Now, if he had purchased the arsenic for an innocent puipose, why should he suppose he must be hung? And why should he use such extraordinary language within two days after he'had buried his wife, when ms mind ought to have been filled with sorrow and with grief'' I have you to imagine. Bui ii is said by the counsel that the arsenic was purchased at Burner & Dawson's for the purpose ot killing Ibe minks that took the fish from his basket. And for the purpose of substantiating this position, they call Samuel Ear Is, a child of about eleven years old, the son of the prisoner, to prove that his father, on the at- ternoon before his mother died, took him and a younger brother in a canoe up to the hsh basket, about half a mile distant, and there took from his pocket sump " white stuff" which was wrapped in two p?pers, one white and the other red, and putting some on a fish that lay in the basket, told the little boy to put it under the fall board, and he threw the papers into the river. Samuel thtn asked his father what he put it in the fish for? He said "to kill the minks, he wanted to give them a dose." And " it ivas all put in the fish." There can be no doubt that this was a preparatory measure, intended merely to blindfold, and little Samnel, when neces- sary, was to be the witness. If anything should be said about ihe arsenic purchased at Money, he was thus enabled to account for its use. But if all the arsenic v i.- p,.t in the hsn, where did that come from which was taken by Mrs. Earls. To strength- en tins position, John Carter, an apothecary of Norihumberland, is called and proves that "about the first of October last," the prisioner called at his store and asked for some anise seed oil and asafoetida; said he used them for fishing ; that lbs minks or muskrats got to preying on his fish, " and he thought he ought u> get som- arsenic orfratsbane," and stated that " he fished near Waisonstown." Mr. Carter then gave him two drachms, or about as much as would lay on the point of a case knife. It is somewhat strange that Ear;s should go all the way to Northumbtrlund fur this article, when it could have been procured much nearer home ; and it is al- fco strange that he should say he "fished near Watsnnslown," when in tact he fished aid lived at Muncy hills, five miles above that place. The object of this evidence is to account for the possession of the arsenic, and show it was used ; but should we admit Ciat he sometimes used it in the manner contended for, it would only prove his familiarity wiih the article, and afford a reason why lie should prefer it as the means of accomplishing his wife's death. Suppose the prisoner to have used all he 112 bought at Muncy, at the fish basket, he has entirely failed to f!cred the evidence of Mr. Carter. In Mr. Hoffman's back room, at Muncy, you will recollect, Earls stated that he had bought-a bottle of rum some weeks previous, and wished to know what had become of it ? His mother " turned round and said, Katy kad -went over her time two -weeks, and this liquor had been bought for that purpose, when she was put to bed," and it had been drunk ten days or two weeks belore. It seems then the arsenic was got of Carter, at the very time Mrs. Earls was expected to lie in; and so far from favoring the prisoner, it is most powerful proof that he intended to seize upon this particular occasion to carry his nefarious design into ef- fect. I ask ofthe counsel to explain the singular coincidences which here present themselves—1« inform us why it was that just when Mrs. Earls was expected to be confined, arsenic was bought at Northumberland ; that two weeks after and just one day before she was actually confined, arsenic was purchased at Muncy; and Chat the night after her confinement, she is deprived of life by means of arsenic. Vain will be the attempt to account for these things on any other ground than a supposition of the prisoner's guilt. They may refer them to accident or change ; but I tell you they are the cold calculations of a heart that can delight to revel in cruelty and mock at suffering. We are not obliged to rely for a conviction in this case on a few isolated facts; we are surrounded with circumstances so combined and multiplied as to exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt. 1'he prisoner himself does not seem willing to admit, that he enjoyed happiness with his wife at any time, although it does not appear there was the slightest want of fidelity on her part. \Vhen one of the witnesses after the arrest observed to him "you and your wife always lived peaceable in Mil- ton ;" he replied, " it is a d----d lie, (not to call you a liar) but any .nan that says so is a d----d liar." It may be true indeed that not much peace prevailed in the family, and the admission fortifies the presumption of guilt, and shows why the pri- soner was anxious to rid himself of an incumbrance, that stood in the way of his future prospects. 1 he harsh and savage treatment which the deceased daily received from him, coupled with his constant threats, proves that in the end, he only carried out what he haJ premeditated long before. Permit me to bring to your recollection a few of the facts connected wiih this part of the case. Susan Earls thinks it is about a year since her father began to use her mother bad, which corresponds with what is known of his illicit intercourse with Maria N5ori;.z. It is proved by Susan M'Callaster and several other witnesses, that on one occasion hist winter, Earls was from home, and somewhere met wiih Maria, took her into his sleigh, *nd in disregard ofthe feel- ings of his wife drove past his own house. The deceased observing them, followed after as far as Mr. Mangus' half a mile below. There Earls got out of the sleigh, caught holJ of his wife, and in the very presence ofthe abandoned prostitute he had with him, threw her into the trough at the fountain pump, wet her all over and tore the dressjiearly off her back. She then escaped imo the house of Mr. Mangus, and took refuge in the har. Earls followed her in, and supposing no one in the house knew what he had done, hypocritically asked " what was the matter." Mrs- Man* gus kindly gave her another dress, and kept her for the night. The morning before This happened, he threw her down at his own house and " hauled her over the floe twice with the stove rake," by putting the lo,wer end which was made of iron, under her chin and dragging her along. Again, on new year's morning, (a year since) " he took her from the breakfast table and jerked her out into ihe kitchen, and then he caught her by the hair and pulled her in again " At the same time, Oliva Sechler slates, " he hauled her to the cellar, and she was there sometime; 1 went in to her and she was crying severely and her clothes appeared to be much torn." "At another time" says Miss Sechler, "about a month before her confinement he put her into the ee!l»r and locked .-i»;jiiar, w:.ik oh his w.ry to LHmcy, sa:i at otjcr times, are also full of meaning, iia ' U5. said to Charles Lebo, whose character for truth :iei, John Earls, had never been legally married to his reputed wife,. Catharine Earls, and that he had another wife rruw living to whom he had been married pre- vious to his adulterous connection with the deceased." We resisted the evidenca offered for ihe purpose of shewing these facts, for the reasons urged in argument, bat the court in their liberality to the prisoner, very properly £ive him The benefit of their doubts, as in other instances, and permitted them to make the proof. But unfortunately they could not prove any thing about it. Alexander Mannus says, " I know nothing about Earls having another wife, only what 1 heard Mrs. Ogle say." Samuel 1$. ik-.rker says, " I know i\othing of Earls having another wife, only what I heard l»i.-■ mother say." Neither Mrs. Ogle nor his mother was called, and here th« farce ended. Perhaps the gentlemen would have been better pleased if tho coutS had refused to receive the evidence, as then they might have had at least \ha ad- vantage of the impression which, their offer had perchance left on your minds. I Will nut say that this was what they designed. 'Yet it is clear the whole was a mere flourish. When the commonwealth offered to prove the improper intimacy th^t existed between the defendant aud Maria Moritz, for the purpose- of shewing mo- tcve, it was most fiercely resisted by ihe counsel, because.it would "make out the chui^A of adultery," which was a distinct crime, and if true outfit not to operata against him in this trial. But nqw, the defendant is willing to confess himself an adulterer even where, so far as regards the deceased, it was not true. Suppose, however, that ihe allegation was true, I ask the discriminating counsel, who say they Olit'iiid it IX thi p.uyvie of reba.tling or allowing 'wanted moliv« on the part of - 116 Xarls, to commit the murder, whether it would not hive been equally effective in shewing want of motive on the part of Mrs. Earls to destroy herself. These abor- tive attempts of the defendant, to extricate himself from the dilemma in which his crimes have placed him, are powerful evidence of his* guilt. He first insists that his wife was a drunkard, and then a prostitute. Is this " treading lightly o'er the ashe« of the dead ?" And how does ail this chime with " all the forms of funeral rites and ceremonies known in the place," and which it is said were so "strictly observed?" Do men mourn ove*r, and calf clergymen to preach funeral sermons over their pros- tituted mistresses, and call them "departed relatives?" O, shame, where is thy blush! Hypocrisy, thou should'st veil thy face. Let the dingy scarf be torn off and cast to the wind, lest it bring into disrepute that well known badge of real grief. What shall we think ofthe man who is willing to declare before an assembled mul- titude, that he was an adulterer, and allow his little children to hear from their own father for the first time, that they were bastards, and their mother a prostitute. How deeply was it calculated to sink into their hearts, and be remembered to the latest period of their existence. On the subject of motive," 1 have yet a few remarks to make. It is certainly true . that in the commission of crime, men are generally actuated by some strong induce* ment ; but where the offence is independently proved, its existence wiil be pre- sumed. In the present case, we have shown the most powerful motive that could operate upon the human mind. An unconquerable attachment for Maria Moritz, fed and fanned- into flame by the indulgence of. the most brutal passions, and a conse- quent estrangement of all affection for his wife, is what has brought the prisoner into the pitiable situation in which he is now placed, to answer at the bar of justice for the highest offence known to her laws. I have no desire to connect Maria Mo- ritz with the prisoner's guilt, further than my duty may demand; but may I not in- quire, what was it that induced the prisoner to say to his little daughter Susan in the jail, that "if he was kung he -would see two more hung with him." Who did he refer to? When we loo.k back to the spirit of prophecy,.with which Henrietta and Sabina Moritz seemed to be endowed, and which enabled them to foretel the very time, the occasion, and the means which would bring about the death of Catha- rine Earls, can we doubt for one moment that Maria was their oracle ? And are we not furnished with a key to unlock the observations of Earls to his daughter? Re- member, also, his anxious inquiry of Jacob Hogendobler in the prison, " whether they had brought Maria Moritz up to be examined," stating that" he was afraid they would scare her, and she would say something that was not true." If there was no intimacy between them, why shouli he suppose that she, more than another, could 6ay anything against him ? It was because he fe"ared she might be " scared " and would say something that was true. His fear of disclosures by Maria, speaks vol- umes against him, and shows how deeply she was in his confidence. They were daily and nightly in the habit of meeting at plactes of assignation, and their profliga- cy and lewdness knew no bounds. Samuel Garnhart proves that in May last, they were together in Mull's stable, and spent three hours in the hay loft after night. At another time, just before harvest, they were seen in the same place. John Shuman states, that while he boarded at William Moritz's, in March or April last, Earls came there to stay all night. Shuman went to singing school, and on his return found Earls in his bed ,- in a' short time, and before Shuman got to sleep, Earls rose and, went info the room where the girls, Maria and Sabina. slept, and stayed there till. between three and.four o'clock in the morning. Again, when Mrs Earls was at Mil- ton, Maria was at Earls' and slept with Mary Ann ; about twelve o'clock she got up, and, says Mary Ann, "lam not right sure if she went to bed to pap or not—she went down stairs and lifted the latch up ; I dont kpow whether she was out or riot; she came back to.bed to me about four o'clock.". Hugh Donley states that in May last, he got up one morning about three o'clock to go down to Sechler's lock, and he met Earls and Maria between the dam and the lock. On his return, about two mile's above the dam, he looked up the hill and saw Maria combing her hair, and a little further on saw Earls coming out ofthe woods. Mr. Donlev also states that he heard Earls say on the day of his arrest, that " he loved Maria Moritz and he did not care a d----n who knew it.". Eliza Grieb saw him embrace her in Moritz's kitchen— " dear Maria," said he, and " he caught her round the neck and hug'd her and kissed her." Recollect, also, the tantalizing and insulting language used to his wife, and in the presence of his children. Hear him tell her in the presence of his daughter, tnat " he loved Maria Moritz, and he would go to see her when he pleased,"and stay at hofne when he pleased ;" that " if she could kiss and hug as well as Mam cou'd 117 * he would like her much better than he did." Hear all this, and say if you g»b, tfcat in taking away the life of his wife he aeted without motive. If these statements were untrue, why not call Maria lo disprove them ? Of all others, not even except- ing her sisters, Sabina and Henrietta, who make testimony " to order," she would be the best.witness,, Has she not been in daily attendance during the present court, and do 1 not even now see her, in.despite of all modesty, sit facing me in»the gal- lery ? They dared not lo call her, lest the rigor of a cross-examination might have wrung from her reluctant >oul, truths too astounding for ihe prisoner's ear. I have now noticed the principal facts in this cause, arid will endeavor to bring my argument to a close. There are many things, 1 am aware, that remain untouch- ed, but I will rely on the memory and observation of this intelligent and attentive jury to supply.my omissions. We have proved, so far as human testimony uncontra- dicted could' prove, that the death of Catharine Earls was caused by poison, crimi- nally administered. If you are satisfied of this, itfollows from necessity that a guilty agent was concerned. That agenl, if there be any truth in circumstances, any virtue in evidence, was the nri-tonsr at the bar. We have shewn it not only by the testi- mony bearing direetly on himself, but by the complete overthrow of all the alterna- tives he has been able to interpose between himself and guilt. I ask you to reflect solemnly on'the facts we have laid before you, and give them that consideration which will enable you, before God and your country, to find such a verdict as truth and justice may demand. It is all that thp commonwealth ask. Be not shaken in the discharge of your duty, by the awful consequence which you will so often b« told, must follow a conviction. The consideration of the punishment annexed to crime, can throw no light or, the fac's which constitute the crime itself. And, be- ware, I beseech you, of that false pity which has slain its thousands, and which too often takes its seat in the jury box, and silently, sways its sceptre over the laws of the land. If the prisoner speak true," he has long since deserted one wife, and if the facts in this cause be true, he has murdered another.— Spare him through pity, and who can say that even Maria may not be marked as his next victim. Is your clem- ency so abundant, that you can prodigally waste it on that man who knew no pity ? who could stand atlhebed side of his suffering and expiring wife, unmoved as mar- ble ; whilst he watched the poisoned liquid coursing through her frenzied brain, till unfitted for the holy office of prayer, she is sent to-eternity .with all her sins upon her head, ere she could say, "Lord have mercy on me ?" And yet not one throb escapes his bosom. If you have pity to spare, bestow it on the innocent and not on the guflty. Strong appeals will also be made to your sympathy, and you will be addressed by the gentlemen who are to follow me, with a fervency and eloquence worthy a belter Cause. Eel me, however, with deference warn you against a verdict extorted from your feelings, and which your judgment hereafter might condemn. How feelingly were you told by fhe counsel th.n -the prisoner " with his little children around him took a last farewell ofthe remains of his departed wife," when she was about to be laid in the silent grave. " with his eyes bathed in tears, mingled his sobs and cries with his little ones who were mourning over the corse of their lamented mother." Yes, those " little ones" did mourn indeed ; but their father mourned not with them. When the deceased was taken to the lonely church yard, and about to be consigned ' to her tenement ofclay—when the coffin lid was.removed and the children, weeping, came up to take their last look, where then was the prisoner? Did he approach the coffin ? No. He'shrunk troth the gaze, " and stood back against a tree," till all th# remained of Catharine Karls was covered up and hid from an unfriendly world. "1 did not see a tear on his cheek" said the v/itness, "and I took particular notice." No, not one tear to moisten the grave he had prepared with his own hands. Yet this is the " weeping willow" that has been described to you. Gentlemen, I will now close my remarks. I shall not anticipate the arguments of my friends on the other side ; my able colleague, in conclusion wiU do them ample jus- tice In asking a verdict of " guilty." we desire you should be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt; lor it is neither the right, nor the interest ofthe commonwealth, to convict unless the evidence warrants it. We believe the prisoner has forfeited all claim to, and is no longer a fit member of, society. Should you through any mista- ken conceptions of mercy turn him loose on the world, what securiiy have you against a repetition of his offence. The man who has once wilfully and deliberately taken away the life ofa human'being, will do it again. It is not the wrongs of the de-eascd we would avenge. Catharine Earls is numbered with the dead and cannot 119 . » '?? recalled Tram th* grave. It is the cau«e of the living that we plead. It is y have heard, that you cannot in justice lo your own consciences.render a Verdictof guilt against my unfortunate and persecuted client- I my persecuted, because it is in va'u> fog us to try to shut our eyes te» the unparal- lefed excitement which prevails agajiwt the prisoner in every part of this county, and in an adjoining one, to an equal degree- Is it a mere idle curiosity, that has caused this hall to be crowded with spectators lor the last ten days? Or, is it that disposi- tion, least of all others to be commended, which actuates mankind lo aid in slander- iuig a man who is charged with crime ; and to keep up an. undue excitement and force upon the public mind, as a truth, that which they uvAy know from tongues- more to be feared than the drug arsenious acid itself? Men are too apt to gi»'o credence to> rumors of ihis kiiiii ; it is not unusual to find the person charged witis* arime wrongfully convictod, neither is il unusual to iind those who are totally void &f an- honest reputation, the m >st industrious to detect wickedness, and to impute crime to others.—they envy an unblemished reputation, and what they envy, they are bu ihe utmost.'to build up an unenviable an 1 short lived repulatioivby false accusations against the prisoner. 1 pray you, gentlemen, recollect the immense importance of your verdict; if you err, it will remain an error, witno'ut remedy, the consequence of which lo the unfortu- nate Earls, the tide of time can. never eradicate or correct. 1 will now, without fur- the* prefatory remarks, proceed to the evidence. The prisoner is charged in! ihe bill of indictment,, which has been read in your hearing, with the murder of Catharine Earls, by means of •miiite arsenic ; and the in;- diclment contains two cow.it, in the first of which he ,is charged wftb putting tiiti poison into chocolate and-in the second with putting ir into tea.' it appears by tlvt eudencej. that uu the fou.'icciiihof October las'., Mrs, Earls was 319 confined; that the prisoner on thai occasion evinced all the solicitude for'hercoTn- fort that would be expected of any man ; all the usual preparations were made by ihe prisoner ^ there is no exception taken to his acts in this respect. We are, there- fore, to conclude that he provided raiment and all the delicacies for the tabfc-, suita- ble for a woman in her situation; but exception.is taken to his attending to the busi- ness by which he in part supported his family, on the next day after his wife's sick- ness. It is abundantly in evidence that he caught and sold fish, and it is in evidence, that he went to his fishery in the afternoon ofthe fifteenth of October, accompanied by his little boys. Their family meal was not prepared on that day at the usual time, no doubt ir> cbnsequence of the sickness «f Mrs. E&rls, there being no person there to nurse her or to cook, hut her mother in-law; but the.elder Mrs. E. was about pre- paring dinner in the afternoon. When the prisoner started to his fishery, he had gWen his boys a piece, and when his mother told him that she was preparing dinner, and that she was making chocolate, he went on to his fishery, because it was then in the afternoon and if ke had waited for dinner it would have been to late to have attend- ed to his fishery. This is clear, from the fact of its being night when he returned. The making of chocolate is dwelt upon by the counsel for the commonwealth, as a matter within ihe knowledge of the prisoner, but the evidence is directly the re- verse ; for the first we hear of chocolate, is when his mother advises him ol it when he had started to the fishery, it is alleged that he put arsenic into the chocolate, drank by his wife, in the evening after he returned ; 1 ask you, gentlemen, to scruti- nize his every act, from the time he returned until his wife became sick, and point out when and wdiere he had an opportunity of putting anything into the bowl con- • fining the chocolate drank by his wife, unperceived by his children or mother. You will recollect that the prisoner's mother drank chocolate with this comely lady, who has only one pair of husbands at present, (Mrs. Callahan, 1 in the afternoon when the 'prisoner was absent—that his mother consulted his wife as to what she would have for supper—and that the chocolate for the family in the evening, Was made when Earls jelnrned^ hence the preparation of chocolate is not brought home to his know- ledge, but was the act of his mother, at tl\e request of his wife. Wheu he returned from his fishery he made a very usual inquiry of his mother, to wit: " is supper ready," she replied, that it was. or would be as sooti as she had taken Mrs. Earls* "uppM' to her. Then his mother states, that either the prisoner, or the little girls, said that Mrs- Earls did not want hers until the family had supped. Eat Is md Ms children then .sal down to supper, and his mother filled two or three cups of choco- late for them, and then filled a pint bowl of it for Mrs. Earls, and fet it on the stove; she also sat down to supper, but she tells you that she was "soon done," or done before thfc others, that she was not hungry, she had eaten so recently with Mrs. Oal'ia- han, and as soon as she was done, she put the bowl of chocolate and a number of other matters on a waiter, and when the prisoner had risen from the liable, she askerl him to light her up to his wife's room, and that he immediately did so. Now in the whole of this transaction, when was it that the prisoner had an opportunity to put arsenic into the bowl of chocolate, without being seen either by the children «r his H\pther. The children were at the table wiih him, the chocolate-was not put intra Ihe bowl until after he had set down to his supper, arid it was then set on a stove out of his reach, from hts-situation at the tab's. -There is no evidence that he rose from the table until the time his mother asked him to light her, if he had got up and !;-.one lo the chocolate it must have be.en noticed by the children or his mother, fof liiey Ss:>'e now from their recollection of the acts ofthe evening, many things of far less moment—hence, if you are governed by the testimony, and I feel confident that you will not by yi.ur'ii'vsg'mations supply the deficiency in the proof, you will be satisfied that ,he prisoner wa? not in reach of'the chocolate, until his mother war. in ♦ ■»e act of carrying it up. On their way npthe stairs, he had no opportunity of putting it in, for liis mother neither carried it on her head nor on her back ; but held it in full view before her, and-she' would have noticed any action of the prisoner which came so direci.ly in contac1. with the foo-. she was carrying. New we have foliowe-.l him through the whole of this scene, until the chocolate is placed on a chair Hythe bedof Mrs. Eail-, without a moment of time when he could have placed the poison irt ihe bowl unpercrived; and 1 believe it is not alle^vd that he put it in when she was in the act of drinking if, yet he had no greater difficulty to encounter to get it in unperceived in the piesence of his wife and Miss Sechler, than he would have had in.the prefu-iiee of his children and mother. The counsel fir the coin-no.i wealth make a brond and general allegation that the p;;,io.T v p<:<. aivemc into the chocolate, drank by Mrs. Earls that cvemngj but, gen- 120 tlemen, y.ou will require them to satisfy you from the evidence, and to show when it was the prisoner had aecess to the chocolate, and where he could have put any- thing into it without being inslantly detected. You are asked to convict him upon circumstantial testimony; this is a species of evidence which requires the utmost degree of caution and vigilance in its application ; and I trust, gentlemen, that the time has gone by, whet they wish now to leave the impression upon your r.inds, that ttiey had suspicious wh*-n.at the funeral. How different would have been the ceudusl ot men ol truth and honesty, wfco have an h, er*st 11* pre^-vio*- pU;e i»d 123 aocontaminated'the morals of the community, and in protecting their ewn live*, and the lives of their neighbors. As their evidence stands before y ou, you have the strongest reasons to believe their relation of the facts base fabrications—'they dare not swear to anything until after his arrest ; but now the reverse is the truth, they feel perfectly at liberty, and there appears to be a strife amongst some of them, who shall give the rivets of his fetters the surest and strongest blow. Will you, gen- tlemen, upon such evidence as this, regarding as you do the solemnity of the obliga- tion under which you act, be willing to convict the prisoner ? 1 trust not ; but, on the contrary, you will require the commonwealth to establish his guilt by evidence that is beyond suspicion, and which has something substantial, reasonable and honest, to sustain it ; for no man's existence is safe, if a jury will convict upon isolated and unconnected suppositions, many of which are in no manner connected with the issue, and others requiring the aid ofthe imagination to bring them to bear in any degree upon it. Whose life is safe ? I pray you, gentlemen, regard the importance of your high offce, and discriminate between the man who is actuated by an honest regard for truth, and those who live and fatten upon popular excitement. Again, the prosecution has attempted to prove a motive, on the part of the prisoner, for the commission of the crime charged against him. The particular ob- jects which influence men to act, are as various as men themselves ; men placed in the same situation having the same senses and passions, and operated upon by the same causes, arrive at very opposite conclusions; and I must differ in opinion with the learned counsel for the commonwealth, relative to their arguments drawn fronj the evidence to establish a motive. Suppose you come to the conclusion, that tha prisoner was influenced by amatory and sensual passions, generally, it goes no further towards establishing the allegation that he is a murderer, than the guilt of anothe-r charged with larceny, is made out by proof that at the time he was poor and needy. Although much importance is attempted to be given to a motive which I conceive has only been established by the aid of a luxuriant and vivid imagination, that his affections were estranged from his wife, but I ask where is the evidence estab- lishing the fact ? The motive, they allege, is proved by Shuman and Garnhart-, tha former swears that Earls was in Maria Moritz's chamber at her father's, and the latter that he was in William Muli's stable with her. In contradiction of the former, we have proved by two witnesses, who are entitled to equal credit with Shuman, that they have a distinct recollection ofthe acts of the evening and night spoken of by Shuman, and that the accused was not in Maria's chamber that night ? but, on th« contrary, that the three Miss Moritz's occupied the same bed that night; and, more- over, had their chamber door fastened. And in contradiction of the latter, we have shown by Mrs. Mull, that Earls was not in her house ; and Gamhart, willing as he is to swear, does not say that he was certain that it was Earls who was in Mull's stable. Now you are asked to convict the prisoner of a crime, that would launch him inte eternity, and as a necessary link in the chain of evidence, you are gravely solicited to believe Sam. Gamhart in preference to Mrs. Mull. Then how do these wit- nesses appear before you ? The gentleman who has preceded me, has not shown any inducement on the part of Mrs. Mull, to swerve from the truth ; we aver that Garnhart, to acquire the information he now retails, must have been guilty of one of the most degrading, mean and contemptible misdemeanors, known in any civilized land. Is it possible, that you will give credence to a man, who swears that he is a eomint-n eavesdropper, a pimp and a spy, and convict a man of a crime like this, upon such questionable and doubiful authority. Sir William Blackstone, the great com- mentator upon the laws of our mother country, in speaking of those guilty of ttoa base offence, remarks, '* that such, as listen under walls or windows or the eaves of a house, to hearken afler discourse, and thereupon to frame slanderous and mischiev- ous tales, are a cowi/now nuisance, and presentable at the court leet, or are indictable at the sessions and punishable by fine and finding sureties for their good behavior," 4 B. p. 168. V\ hat crime or misdemeanor would this fellow stop at committing ? A man who will stand up here and unblushingly acknowledge his own iniquity, must be so hardened as (o be fully prepared for perjury, or any other crime required by the emergency of his situation. The prosecution imputes the crime charged against; the prisoner, to him particularly upon the e\ idence of this Garnhart, who they allege establishes ihe connection between Earls and Miss Moritz; then I ask you it you are governed by this rule, that proof of one crime is evidence of another, to notice that Garnhart is a subject to whom the rule will apply with all its force. Again, a witness is brought all the way here to proi e that he " thought," hesaw Earls at the dutanee jy' one fourth of a mile, (.a 'v one morning in tK- neighb'-ihood of MX MoriU ; lh* I2± sfrefching ofthe witness' vision, shows what will be resorted to in a hopeless cause, and sustains my position, that the imagination must supply the evident want of con* naction in this long series of circumstances or the prosecution must fail. If it were proved that he was intimate with and attentive to Maria Moritz, it does not necessa- rily follow that his affections were estranged from his wife, more than the fact of a man's taking a particular interest in any branch of science or business goes to prove that his previous dominant propensities are entirely obliterated by his partiality for his new vocation. If, however, you do believe those witnesses, we assert without fear of successful contradiction, that their testimony may all be true and yet be con- sistent with the prisoner's innocence ; if so, the law which you will have fully and fairly explained by tins learned court, and which is part of the evidence in every Cause, and equally binding upo nyour consciences, rules that he shall not be convicted upon such testimony. It is said that the settled law of the land operates hard in some instances, and I trust that you have no disposition to adopt a new principle in jurisprudence, in doing more than the law requires at your hands as jurors. An attempt has also been made to prove that the prisoner was unreasonably abu- sive to his wife. If it even were satisfactorily shown that he treated her harshly, you would in your deliberations take into consideration his situation in life, the gene- ral deportment of his wife towards him, and the provocations and attendant circum- stances in palliation ; and here I may be permitted to remark, that whatever the more tender nerved part of community may say, or from their sensitiveness feel, against the man who ill treats his wife, yet we all know from actual observation that it is no very uncommon occurrence to see the husband so far behind the age in which he lives, as to pursue the fashion of the ancients in correcting his wife by flagellation, which I grant you characterized the age of barbarism. Yet much can be, and no doubt will be most eloquently said against the uncivil practice; still, from the nature of your present situation, being for the time and purpose excluded from society, it is your duty to carefully deliberate upon the circumstances connected with the allegations. In this case the prosecution has made a general averment of constant abuse, which is relied upon as one ofthe connecting links of this hypothetical chairs and presented to you by the counsel as an indesperisable part ofthe proof to warrant his conviction. You, gentlemen, must have noticed their failure in sustaining these charges, they have had the whole time of cohabitation of the prisoner and the de- ceased thrown open—the last sixteen years of his life have been Scanned with all the cunning, care and industry ot his persecutors, and it has resulted in their giving a coloring to his acts at three different times. On two of the occasions spoken of oy the witnesses she was iri a violent passion, playing the part of a common scold, and per- haps intoxicated, and at the other time spoken of, her acts were anything else than those of & woman possessing a particle of prudence or delicacy. She followed him through the snow to Marigus', more like a savage, than a woman who had ever heard of civilization. It is painful to me to speak thus of the acts ofthe dead ; but I must forego my individual feelings and endeavor to speak of those acts as they are in fact, without regard to who the actors have been. It was asserted in the opening, that the prisoner put his wife into the trough at Mangus', no doubt with a view of keep- ing up this unhallowed excitement; but it turns out, as in the other points of evi- dence, the allegation was stronger than the proof—that after she had behaved highly improper in interfering with his horse, he threw some water on her with his hand to compel her to leave him. Then this is that inhuman abuse so highly colored by the imagination of counsel. It is a very easy matter to call those pes barbarous, and to give them other harsh appellations , but when you examine them you find that she was always the aggressor, and that the prisoner does not deserve the slight- est censure on account of them. Why then press upon you circumstances of this kind, which at most are foreign to the issue, and attempt to attach so much impor- tance to them ? It is, gentlemen, because the counsel for the commonwealth under- stand perfectly what tney are about, and are aware that the prosecution is weak in point of evidence, and that it is incumbent upon them *o make the guili of the prisoner so glaring that every one who hears the evidence must be convinced that he is guilty from the evidence alone, and not by rumor or previous prejudice. I have now given this pari of the case all the notice 1 shall be able to at this time, and will proceed to another branch ot the testimony ; but before I close upon this point permit me to entreat you to confine yourselves to the testimony whenjdeliberaiing upon the alleged motive and abuse, for I feel confident that upon a candid review of »t. you will not find anything that will give rise to a reasonable suspicion against my client. Men are not to be judicially murdered in this far famed and fayored land, t« 125 gratify the maVice of their enemies. You, as jurors, are the proper safe guard to protect us in our rights of life, limb and property. Your office is truly an important one ; to the jurors of his country must every injured man apply for redress—to the sanctity and purity of the law, and its faithful and humane administration, every innocent prisoner looks with full faith and confidence for that liberty which is guar- anteed to the injured and persecuted, by our free institutions. To you, gen'.lemen, in this instance, my unfortunate client looks with all that confidence and certainty that naturally buoys up and sustains injured innocence, tor a release and honorable discharge from the worse than adder fangs of his enemies. An exceedingly lame attempt has been made to show that the prisoner tried to escape after his arrest. This allegation is so inconsistent with his acts after the in- terment of his wife, that I cannot believe for a moment that you will give it any serious consideration. He was free as air fro.n Saturday until Monday following; and there is no evidence of any preparation or appearance of his leaving home. If he ever had been disposed to fly from justice, he would not-have waited until one of those man- catchers had laid his talons upon him, with the vain hope of doing it then; for the slightest reflection upon such a course would have convinced him that if an attempt was made to arrest him, the officer would be accompanied by a sufficient force lo effect it. And yon find the officer surrounded at all points, with stout, active young men, who were ready then, and some of them give us satisfactory evidence that they are ready now, for any emergency. Witness the conduct of Hogendobler, who man- ages to get into a fresh, examination nearly every day ; see his vigilance and his apt- ness at prompting the counsel for the commonwealth—from his conduct we would almost conclude that his very existence depended on his success in this prosecu- tion. The prisoner submitted peaceably, and started for Muncy with them, and from that time onward, you must have observed tbst not one word escaped his lips, which lia3 not been repeated here with as many variations and additions as there have been witnesses examined upon the subject, and each colored and variegated accord- ing to the proficiency ofthe witness in exaggeration. The prisoner's running when on the way to Muncy, is relied upon as proof positive of his intention to make his escape. Without repeating particularly all that was said by the witnesses relative to his running, recur to the peculiar state of feeling at that time. Earls had gone to .Mosteller's in consequence of some witchcraft rumor started by Mrs. Mosteller; When there he was arrested, and by the time they got back to where he ran, they had taken several drinks of liquor ; and being under a very great degree of excite- ment, owing to all these causes, he r-m in a frolicsome manner ; amd recollect that when he did run he was, always in advance of the posse. I'hen, if his intention was to make his escape, why not embrace the opportunity ? It was, gentlemen, because foe felt then, as he had ever felt, conscious of his innocence, and had no desire at that or any subsequent period to make his escape. You will also recollect that he inquired of one of the posse, shortly after he left Mosteller's, if ihey would g> t through to let him return home lhat night, evidently showing his impression at that time to be that he had nothing to fear from any hun.au being, and that it had never occurred to him that there was any danger from false representations against him. Many of his idle expressions when on his way to Muncy, to be arraigned before that inquisition, are now retailed here as evidence. You may tenm them vulgar and pro- fane if you will, but do they tend to prove that he had any knowledge of the cause of the death of his wife ? It he had remained perfectly mute, from the time he was arrested until he was committed to prison, it would have been equal evidence in the imagination of the crowd who were collected round him, of his guilt j for it mattera not what his acts or declarations may have been, it was sufficient for this posse u> know that a chaige was made against him, to justify them in putting the blackest construction upon them. It is not a man's personal friends who take upon them- selves the office of arresting him upon a charge of thi* character ; but, on the con- trary, it is those who readily believe in tho marvellous and go with minds iliy pre- pared to hear anything favorable to the person accused. 1 do not wish to be un- derstood to say that it was wrong 111 tho'Je persons to arrest him ; after the warrant was issued, it was commendable to bring him before ihe justice; but 1 take excep- tion to ihe evident coloring they have given his acts and declarations after he w..s arrested, and believe thai you will agree with me that the opinion given by the me. dical gentlemen had a powerful influence upon the manner and matter of the testi- mony of several of the whnesses ; and, moreover, lhat his declarations after his ar- s-est were such as you would naturally expect from an uncultivated mind, and from a man who did no mora than use the common phrase of his Associates. However 126 profnne sueh declarations may appear to those who have never mixed with men of his habits and associations, yet ail who have been under the necessity of doing so, are aware that such expressions ar« looked upon as a matter of sport, and no evil at- tached to them whatever. Much has been said about his purchasing arsenic in Mun- cy on the thirteenth of October last; but we have followed his admission of that pur- chase with proof by his son, that he put "some white stuff" into a fish on the 14th of October to kill minks. We have also shown that the prisoner has been in the habit of using it for a number of years, for the purpose of destroying muskrats and minks, as occasion required. We have shown that he purchased arsenic and had it in his possession repeatedly, and that he actually used it for that purpose several years ago, and that others were in the practice of using it for the same purpose. Then these fact3 go very far to destroy the effect attempted to be produced by proof, of his acknowledging that he purchased arsenic at Bruner & Dawson's. It shows conclusively that he had constantly for years had the drug in his possession, and, therefore, no particular motive can be attributed to his having it at that time, more than to a druggist. We have proved that he purchased arsenic of Mr. Carter, of Northumberland, a short time previous to the death of his wife; then if his object in procuring the arsenic was to destroy his wife, why did he purchase more at so short a period before her death? Mr. Carter has stated very near the quantity sold him, and we are advised by the physicians that it was sufficient to have destroyed a number of persons; then is not the conclusion irresistible that he used the arsenic pur- chased at ttruner & Dawson's, as alleged by him, and proved by his son; and here allow me to remark that at the time he admitted the purchasing of arsenic in Muncy, he stated that he used it to destroy minks and muskrats; and you will be instructed by the honorable court, that if you take any part of the admissions at the prisoner into consideration when you retire from the box, you are bound to take ihe whole. Then if you deliberate upon the whole, it is explained away by the very means by which you receive information of the purchase; and the same explanation follow* the arsenic purchased of Mr. Carter. Then arsenic being in common use by him, it requires no stretch of the imagination to suppose that Mrs. Earls knew of it, and where it was kept ; but we have in addition to this presumption, positive evidence tlu; she had poison in the blue paper she took from the prisoner. Again, ii is in evi- dence from several witnesses that Mrs. Earls talked of dying, that she threatened to eommit suicide, and that by means of arsenic. If you believe therefore she died from the effect of arsenious acid taken into the stomach, it is not an unreasonable inlerence to say she took it herself, fully aware ofthe consequences. What is it, pray, thai a jealous woman will not do to wreak her vengeance upon those whom she sup- poses have injured her? 1 leave it for others to imagine; for my own part I can conceive of nothing too daring or violent.. Witness Mrs. Earls' following ihe prisoner half a mile through the snow when he was carrying Moritz and his daughter home ; and at another time beating Miss Moritz, and asking her husband to go to the house to see how she would do it. Is this not evidence that with her, jealousy was a dominant passion ? Under these circumstances it is by no means an unreasonable conclusion, lo say lhat she did, as she repeatedly declared she would, co.iceal the, drug in her chamher, and at a suitable moment took the fatal dose. I will now, gentlemen, refer to and real a few pages of law, from Philips's Evi- dence, to show how exceedingly cautious a jury ought to be in giving credence to Circumstances such as are here given in evidence. [Here Mr. E. read several pages from the authority mentioned and commented upon them and continued to the jury.] 1 have now. gentlemen, given most of the prominent features ofthe evidence in this cause a short notice, and had intended examining some of r.iem more fully, as well as to have turned your attention to the anatomical examination and chemical tests— but a severe attack of indisposition, with the labor attending this trial, have so far exhausted my strength, that I am under the necessity of closing my remarks ; trust- ing that you will bear in mind many matters that i have not noticed and which are important to the prisoner. 1 close here more willingly, upon recollecting that A will be followed by my friends and distinguished colleagues ; trusting, gentlemen, that you are nut disposed to pronounce a verdict of guilty againsl the unfortunate Earls upon such evidence. I thank you kindiy for your attention, and submit tht eauae to your chnge. 127 SPEECH ©F WILLIAM COX ELLIS, E$^. {The following is a condensed sketch of the argument of ,W. C. EUis, Esq. ant of the counsel for the prisoner, delivered in his defence.} 1 am about to make the last effort I shall have in my power, to vindicate the cause ofthe prisoner. In attempting to make this effort 1 am overwhelmed with the magnitude of the trust confided to me, and with the importance of the duly which the partiality of the defendant has imposed upon me. 1 make no affectation of a •sensibility not excited, and of a duty not felt. But these feelings are easily conceiv- ed, and an impression of this sense of duty may be felt, when we bring before us the cause, the subject, and the perilous situation of our client. 1 confess myself en- tirely unable to appreciate the anx»ety that afflicts the learned counsel for the com- monwealth—because, there is no evidence in the cause that can even assure the sanguine eagerness of that gentleman of the guilt ofthe prisoner. 1 car. sympathize, gentlemen, with the oppressive anxiety that you may have felt and still do feel, in the discharge of your duty. The prisoner and his counsel, hav« to tender you their common thanks for your patience, your endurance of long sit. tings without a complaint, for your close observance of all the testimony in the cause, I would wish to spy to the jury, in the presence of so many of their fellow citizens, that all this is true, and that further, I have never known in many years practice in my profession, a jury to sit for more than two weeks, for nearly nine hours every day, and yet in all that time, that no juror has left the box for a moment. This un- ceasing watchfulness ofthe whole cause confided to you, assures the counsel for the prisoner, that you are prepared by a just sense of the awful responsibilities imposed upon you, to pass between the commonwealth and the prisoner at the bar. The charge against the defendant is murder—it is more, it is foul, deliberate mur- der by poison ; and the subject of that murder was the reputed wife of the prisoner, and the mother of his children; and the charge is further, that this murder was committed upon such a victim in childbed. There are feelings, perhaps, arising out of the social combination of general so- ciety and dependant principles of self security, that rouse up with bitter retaliation upon the wretch who could be the author of such a crime. This principle of retal- iation may lie deeper, it may be aided by principles of our nature, imprinted upon the heart of man, and above all it may be sanctioned by the obligations and influen- ces of religious education. It is not, then, surprising, that we have seen this hall crowded from day to day by spectators, exhibiting an interest in the cause trying, which, gentlemen, the like f;f you have none of you ever witnessed. These principles jjroperly indulged and pro. perly restrained, are securities for social order. In excess, their indulgence may overturn and uproot all the rights of the innocent. On this occasion we have corn- plained that such feelings as I have described, have so influenced the public mind, that a prejudice against the prisoner, lore-judging his Ciuse, has obtained ; that wt: feel it and see its effects on every side of us. Against this complaint the gentlemen who conduct the prosecution protest. They can feel no injurious consequences likely to arine to their cause from this source. But to us, prejudice not to oe con- vinced by facts and argument, is the premonition of death; like the noiseless foot of a pestilence, it walketh at noon day to destroy., That we should be insensible lo this influence of public excitement,"it is in vain to expect, lhat we-should be ihe first to speak of it, is therefore proper, because we are to be the subject of its terrors. You, gentlemen, have been admonished by the solemn administration of obligations rendered to each of you, sacred by your religious opinions, in the face of this cour), and in the midst of this vast concourse of your fellow citizen::, to try this cause ac- cording to the evidence, and a true verdict give between '.he prisoner at the bar and Ihe commonwealth. He has placed himself for trial upon Gori^nd the country—)o^ are that country—upon the evidence which 1 propose to discuss before you, wt are about to submit the life ofthe prisoner, into your hands ; but we trosi we do so un- der the direction of Him, whithout whose notice not even a sparrow falleth to the ground. The evidence relied upon by the counsel for (he commonwealth, is not positive, it is not of that class which directly establishes the guilt of the accused, and excludes not only the probability out even the possibility of the innocence of the prisoner— c( that class of testimony, which relies alone upon the accuracy and truth of the witnesses. But it is that" kind of testimony and evidence called circumstantial and ' pre>aunq/'iVe~becau»e,upori rue latter kind of evidence, presumptions are admitted 129 t« arise, and to influence the jury, upon the proof of the existence of certain facts, which ought to have such relation to the crime charged, as in the case of positive evidence, to exclude the probability, nay possibility, of ihe innocence ofthe accused. It is of course a kind of evidence, required alike by common sense, the lav, and every principle of social duty, to be most nccurately, most cautiously examined. That it is a species of evidence, full of danger in its application, to the rights of each other, and to the life of an accused person, the records of courts both in Eng- land and this country, fully prove. There are distinguished instances of convictions and executions founded upon evidence of this kind, that to this day the guilt of the sufferers has not been established in public belief; but, on the contrary, are remem- bered with great pain, by all thinking and humane persons. Of this class, are the two celebrated cases of Miss Blandy, and Captain Donnellan. In other instances, per- sons have been convicted and executed who have after their death been proved to have been innocent ; among these are tin; cases of Mr. Crawford,, of Scotland, and Jennings, the servant at an English Inn. These cases will be read to you, either by myself or my colleague. The conclusion to be deduced from the history of convic- tions upon this species of evidence, is to weaken our confidence in it as a means of illustrating disputed facts. In positive evidence, the jury may err by relying upon the supposed truth of a perjured witness. In presumptive evidence, the occasions of error are increased one degree further, for the witness may nol only swear to a false statement of facts; but the jury may err in the presumptions lo be deduced from the supposed fact. It will be a principle of our defence for the prisoner, that we beseech the jury to bear in mind, upon the true application of which, the life of the prisoner may de- pend. The principle to which 1 shall refer, will be insisted upon by my learned colleague; it has already been found in his opening ofthe testimony on the part of the defendant. It will be found in our best works upon tiie law of evidence. It is this—"that the facts in the first place shall be satisfactorily proved to have existed ; that from every fact and all the tacts taken together, the conclusion shoull follow with moral certainty ; that ihe innocence of the prisoner must be excluded." If such should be tbe state ofthe evidence, then, although the counsel ofthe prisoner are perfectly satisfied of his innocence, they will yield him up to a verdict compel- led to be given against him under such circumstances. By these principles, we are willing to encounter all the evidence in this cause, to examine it in its parts, and to submit to irs legal effect taken collectively. Because we aver, and fearlessly en- counter the prejudices of which 1 have spoken, if that excitement will allow its sub*- jects to reason and to feel as men, that :ril ihe evidence in the cause, either consid- ered in parts or entire, does not in either aspect necessarily exclude the innocence ofthe defendant. The facts may exist singly and connected, as the commonwealth has endeavored to arrange them, and yet .lohn Earls may be entirely and purely in* nocent—as innocent as that child of lus now hanging round the box of its wretched rather. The innocent, in all their innocence, may be stricken down by a verdict founded Mpon a misconstruction of the principles of evidence. Such, in the inscrutable pro- vidence of God, has been ihe case before. Ii may be in the present instance. But, if upon evidence such as is presented in this case, your verdict should fasten the felon cord around the neck of the prisoner, s id would 1 hold, as a lawyer and a man, that no facts disclosed in the testimony can justify such a verdict. For we aver that there is no such coherence in the parts of the evidence, as to form the chain even of a close and compact narrative of facts—thai none of the fact* separately indicate guilt and the exclusion of innocence. Without further prefatory remarks, I will now proceed, gentlemen, to the examination of the testimony. In this duty, I pray your candid attention for my sake, for the sake of our unfortunate client, for your own ac* count in view ofthe solemn verdict you are to pronounce. The counsel for the commonwealth rely for con\iction ofthe defendant upon ihe testimony, first, of Mrs. Sechler. What part of thai testimony is there that can prove guilt ? Is it that Earls himself aroused th • witness in the dead of the night to come and wail upon his sick wife? was lhat the act of a murderer ? Who obliged him to do this natural act of kindness and goodness? No one. Then the act itself and all that follows are exactly those of an innocent man. He was requested to bring Mrs. Callahan ; did he refuse to do so ? —not at all ; he did as was suggested to him; %_ he went for Mrs. Callahan and brought her ; he could not have been loug gone, for the distance being to Callahan's and back two miles. But he blaspnemed. Such is the ii.rlueiicfc of pivjadiji,- on tis- mind ofa narrator. What all others would have called • 129 '.tie language of agony, of deep feeling, of passionate grief, expressed in the rougBi language of an uneducated man, tho very language of prayer, Mrs. S. construes into blasphemy. We are not only not bound to give the constructions of a prejudiced witness, but if a construction can be fairly given to the language in tavor of an accused party, we are Solemnly bound to give that construction. One word as to Mrs. Sechler. I have every respect for her character ; as a woman, I believe her to be entirely incapable of wilfully misinterpreting lhe;words or acts ofa party. But 1 may, I do, nevertheless, believe her to be much excited 3gainst the prisoner; as to the cellar scenes, they have nothing to do with the case, and are fully explained by Dan Griffin, Mrs. Marin- es and Mary Ann Earls. This testimony, then, might as well have been omitted, but for the sake of connection in the narrative, it proves no crime. What then is there in the testimony ofthe next Witness examined, Mis. Callahan, to support this prose- cution ? She was present immediately after the death of Mrs. Earls ; she details no delay on the part ofthe prisoner, in bringing her to the 6cene ; true, he got a bottle of whiskey, but that is not murder. It was got because among people, such as John Earls and his family are, it has been an old fashioned notion, something older than sny man's recollection in the jury, »«lhat it is a sovereign remedy" in all cases of child-birth. Little is it that Ea; s could have done, that is not tortured into crime. Mrs. Callahan found him crying ; she found him alarmed and using the common ex- pressions indicating sudden grief, surprize and anguish ; indeed the whole of her testimony is in direct accordance with the innocence of the defendant. Mrs. Calla- han, honest woman, uses somewhat the same kind of expletives that seem to have been familiar to John—she never thought of blasphemy. 'This witness, then, in no manner supports the indictment. If he had not wept—then behold the marbleheart- ed wretch ! Did he weep—then see the vile hypocrite ! Kemember, gentlemen, if you please, that this is one of the witnesses to prove the defendant guilty. The prosecution seems to have swept the very dust of the ground, they have a mark upon every bush by the way side ; the whole country have been pressed into their service, to press lo the earth and crush in death the defendant at'ihe bar. They have been armed with the whole power of the commonwealth lo effect iheir purpose. The cry of blood h;.s been heard from one end ofthe county to the other. The prisoner, in the mean time, has realized all the wo of absolute helplessness, bound down in iron in his gloomy cell, lor nearly six months. So unequally do the parties appear before you. ( Miss Sechler was present when the woman eat her supper, John was kind to her ; saw the dead body of the woman -, and yet more, months before, nay a year before, she witnessed the scene of John putting Katy in the cellar, to get clear of her in a family quarrel, provoked by herself, instead of beating and ill treating her- Gentlemen, it is again only necessary to say, that no crime such as is laid in the in- dictment is proved by this witness ; nor is there a single circumstance from which the guilt Gt" the prisoner can be inferred, but by doing a manifest violence to the evidence ; and it will be remembered too, that this young woman showed no par- ticular kindness of feeling towards the prisoner. The testimony of Mrs. Mangus, taken altogether, is directly evidence for the pri- soner; and the only reason that can be supposed to have induced the commonwealth to have brought her before you, was to get out the story of the pump and the trough, but a small part of the scene of which she saw. When she came to the house of Earls, as they passed through the house on the first story, they saw Earls in the bar room weeping—alone—no one with him. The gentlemen say this was acting—this was all for effect —very charitable—a strange place for enacting an exhibition of affected grief, in a solitary room of his house, the most remote from observation of any in the house, and not having even a child to witness the pretended affliction. The last scene preparatory to the funeral, is just such as- the nature of the case would lead us to suppose it might have been. The children part with a mother in the grief of young children. The father looks for the last time upon the mother ofthe helpless tittle group around him with such feelings as rise up in the heart of all men under similar scenes. Allow me, here, to notice more fully the subject of the funer,.!. You beard Mr. Solomon Mangus state the consultation which John had with him, as to the time proper to be chosen for the funeral; no hurry, no eager.iessto dispatch the business as the sequel lo a deed of murder, and appalling guilt ; nay, he proposed that the dead body should be kept till Sunday in order that the friends ofthe deceased could uiu-ad from Milton ; this -j;i;mori;ie;i ■'■>(■ e:.is to tiavt oecn ottnuied by the advice '-f R 130 Mr. Mangus. Th« grave clothes for the deceased are purchased by Miss Sechler, under the direction of John Earls. Respectable women of the neighborhood, Miss Sechler, Mrs. Thomas and her daughter, are procured to prepare this dress ofthe dead; no secrecy—no hurry—all done openly and in the midst of the neighbors of tho deceased. A respectable clergyman of the neighborhood, is called upon to per- form the solemn rites of our religion in the close of these funeral preparations. All this is as public and open to view, as usually occurs in these melancholy scenes ; all evidences of guilt are not only unsupported by the whole funeral ceremonies and services, but they are absolutely negatived, and put down. But what can we do that will blunt the edge of accusation on the part of the com- monwealth ? If a funeral sermon was preached, then it was the mere counterfeit of a decent respect for the deceased, and intended to lull suspicion, and cheat the pub- lic eye. If no such scene had occurred, then Earls would have been represented as a hard hearted monster, who in his villany neglected even the pretension ofa becom- ing seriousness and sorrow upon the melancholy event. When the coffin was opened at the grave, then the place where Earls stood, the sappling bush against which he leaned, are all minutely described by the witnesses, in order if possible that you'may find something unnatural in the act to an innocent man. Thus it is that the commonwealth, out ofa scene creditable in all its parts to Earls, has attempted to poison the whole with unsupported inferences. I have shortly traced the funeral rites as they are represented to have been acted. They are performed in open day, at a proper time after the death of the deceased, and in the midst of her friends and neighbors, and altogether are strong evidences produced by the commonwealth of the innocence of the accused. For it must be remembered, that he was the person upon whom depended these arrangements. That if a foul murder had been committed, of which he had been the guilty author, or even the remote accomplice, a very different conduct would have been exhibit- ed. Few persons would have been invited to the house preparatory to the fune- ral; that would have bean hurried, and in the presence only of persons not likely to suspect the cause of death. No religious services would have graced the solemn scene, and the guilty man would have trembled at the presence of every additional neighbor who would have come to attend the ceremonies. Such feelings of agita- tion could not have been so suppressed as to have hid the guiltv anxieties of the man. But such is not the case; all is open, all is tranquil, all is in accordance with the solemn decencies ordinarily bestowed upon the remains of departed friends and relatives. > Thus far, then, is there an absolute failure on the part of the commonwealth to sffix guilt upon the prisoner. This far the evidence not onlv does not injure him, but unquestionably supports his defence. May 1 again a*k you, men of the country, to consider these things. We come to consider;'now, other portions ofthe evidence against the prisoner. It is charged in the indictment that the deceased died by poison, administered, first, m chocolate, and secondly, in tea. The counsel for ihe prosecution contend that the occasion selected was either in the preparation ofthe supper, the chocolate and tea, or when granny F.arls carried the supper up stairs to the bedside of the decesed 1 have before said that the prosecution have resorted to unusual pains to prove this crime upon the prisoner. They have brought before you every person and every thing, credible or unworthy of belief, relevant or remote, to sustain their charge. They have, moreover, trampled upon every law of feeling and humanity towards him as a father and a son. They have brought before youhis infantcb.il- dren and bri feeble old mother, to charge upon him the death of the deceased; and by the agency of witnesses so connected with him by nature and by blood, to demand upon their testimony the forfeiture of his life at your hands. One of these children, as you have learned, since the imprisonment of the defendanl, has been in the cus- tody, and under the tuition ofa witness for the commonweal h, having, as we much fear, every disposition to encourage the most bitter -md unnatural feelings of a child towards a parent, li is certainly true, that no witness has appeared before ymi, more influenced by a bold, confident, reckless, unreasoning prejudice, than the youngest of these children. None, in whom every feriing of caution or charily, of nature or humanity have been so absolutely wanting—scenes and words remote in time, forgotten and past, are gathered up and brought before you by this prodigy of wickedness and filial ingratitude, with the flippant readiness of a child repeating a well conned lesson. Is this nature or well directed instruction? The sensibilities ol our nature, sanctioned by ail conditio of society, and enforced by all ihe obli^a- 131 tions of religion, seem in this young child to have been erased and forgotten. There are certain affiliations of life that even the stern morality of the law respects. Thus, neither a wife nor a husband maybe examined for or against each other; nor a lawyer against his client. But it would seem that although Ihe deep written remon- strances of nature ail oppose the, introduction of children and parents, in criminal accusations, against the same relations by blood, in those especially that affect the life of a defendant; yet the law at this period of time permits their examination as witnesses. Then, gentlemen,! will proceed with a brief discussion of iheir testimony. Mary Ann Earls is the oldest child of the defendant; she is the most likely to have noticed accurately what was done and what was said at the time of the death of her mother. Moreover, she delivered her testimony with so much modesty and propriety of manner, that we are persuaded she has left upon your minds, as upon all others without prejudice, a favorable impression as to the truth of her statement. She saw the chocolate prepared ; she saw it dipped up by her grandmother, from the same of which the family made their supper; she saw the bowl before it was pour- ed into it; the bowl was clean 5 nothing was put into the bowl but the chocolate. Gentlemen, in examining this cause you will alrealy have perceived that I have abstained from repeating the testimony of the witnesses, word for word, I will not do so ; it is absolutely familiar to us all. I believe we can, all of us, repeat it sub- stantially from recollection—1 will take it for granted that such is the fact. I regard your labor of attention which you seem to be so much disposed to accord to me, on behalf of our client—I regard also the time ofthe court, and,-permit me to say so, I regard my own inability to support this long continued exertion. Well, then, this witness is produced by the commonwealth ; they have not the right, even if they have the temper, to dispute the facts stated by her. It is a rule of law that a parlj' may not discredit their own witness—this in criminal trials as well as in civil contro- versies. She is not our witness —we beueve her statement—the commonwealth may not deny its truth. W^hat then ? This—that this witness being necessarily to be confided in, John Earls is not guilty—if not guilty, he is innocent as any man in your box. Their tale of suppositions and forced constructions is broken up. I'his witness was present from the time the chocolate was prepared to the death of her mother— she,was present at the supper ofthe family and at the time of her mother eating her supper—she was present when the tea was given and when ona part of it was mada — she was present, as if in ihe providence of God, to repel this foul accusation, from the very commencement ofthe actings in which they charge that the alleged poison was given, to the end of the scene. And, gentlemen, what this witness swears to is in law, in reason and in fact, entitled to the highest degree of credit; because, she is produced by the commonwealth to sustain their charge; because, no one jias at- tempted to impeach her for integrity and truth ; and, moreover, because, no ona could do so ; because, also, that her testimony is in agreement with the truth of the case. If all this be so, how are we to build up a verdict against ihe prisoner upon this testimony ? There is not one smtence of it which proves the corpus delicti, tba body or the crime ; but, on the contrary, if the counsel for the prisoner had called this witness for his defence, I may ask you, would not the whole testimony have been powerful evidence for him ? Without nesitalion, I may rely upon your cheerful as- sent to an afiiirmative answer. The commonwealth in caliingthe next witness have had the benefit of atestimony deliver:--! as willingly and bitterly as they could wish it j but as to the commission of the murder proposed to be proved, they have not been advanced a line—there is not a sentence of proof on this subject. And what is the kind of evidence on which you should be called to pronounce a verdict of guilty ? This is the evidence—evi- dence, which would show that Earls had the means and the opportunity to give ihe supposed poison, and that he actually did give it. It is not e* idence, which negativ- ing a probability that he had the means and opportunity and did do so ; but that all this may be possible. You are not called upon'to found such a verdict upon a possi- ble state of facts. Such a verdict would be alike repugnant to humanity, common sense and law. The usages and law of the state, have made you the judges of the law and the fact in this case ; unlike the rule in civil causes where the jury receive the law from the court, and the court learn the fact from the finding of the jury. It is neither the law nor practice, in Pennsylvania, to require a conviction upon such testimony; the interest and peace of this commonwealth require no sucii absurd decision at. your hands; but guarding against the uncertainty and the danger of circumstantial evidence m all cases. And, above all, in the .-ipijiloation of such evi- dt:.^e to the finding of a verdict affecting the life of a fellow bti.ur, and.fellow citi- 132 zen, unless the lextu« of the fact* ami narrative be so compact and perfect, as to exclude the innocence of the prisoner, the verdict must be not guilty. This is, without doubt the law, as it has been read to you and will again be insisted upon in conclusion by my colleague. It is most probably the tale of abuse and ill treatment of Earls to the deceased that is relied upon to excite your belief that if capable of treating her ill on any past occasion, he could also be capable of seeking her life and of committing a murder. This is equally unfouhded; no such inference can be fairly drawn. Because men fight with each other, is that evidence that either intend to commit murder? The^ law is otherwise. Because, even in a violent assault and battery of one man upori another, the'law will not permit the party attacked to presume that his assailant in- tended to kill him—it will not permit the attacked party to use a deadly weapon in his defence ; and if he should do so, and Should unfortunately take the life of his as- sailant, it will be either manslaughter or murder, according to the peculiar character ofthe defence and attack. This is the well established law on that matter. Then, on the subject of ill treatment, is there one fact adduced in the whole evidence of all the witnesses which supports the supposition of the commonwealth, that you may hence infer a settled design to murder the deceased ? As Susan Earls is to be at the head ofthe witnesses detailing these disgusting family quarrels, I think it best to consider ofthe matter in this place. In putting the deceased in the cellar on the first occasion it seems the prisoner was in drink, had been out all night with several Of his neighbors, shooting the old year out and the new year in—a custom, true enough, " more honored in the breach than in the observance." Dan Griffin, gives the truth of the matter. Miss Sechler says that she thought John was the worse of liquor; but Dan Griffin cays he never saw John so much so before. The scene at the pump, is disgraceful to him as a man. Susan Swenk, if she is to be credited, would have the woman drowned at once. She says he poked her into the trough and held her there for twenty' minutes! You know, well enough, lhat she did not tell the truth—you know, well enough, that against the life of a man, out of the mere Wantonness of wickedness she swore to a deliberate falsehood. Her stove rake story is like her testimony here, neither are believed, and neither can be believed—no witness supports her. If Mrs. Marinus is credited, she made Earls release the de- ceased at the trough. In all that she staled about the scene, when she was seen or met by the other witnesses, she is supported by their testimony. Mrs. Mangus and her daughter support her; and their statement of facts is the same as related by Mrs. Marinus in all they saw- But no one supports the lies of Susy Swenk, or Miss M'Callaster, as the gentlemen are pleased to call their witness. Mrs. Marinus says Earls did not pet Mrs. Earls in the trough at all; but splashed water with his hand Upon her. This, gentlemen, was the fact; and all this was done in high provocation between the parties, not in cool premeditated cruelty, but in a gust of passion. Susan and the old woman say that John struck Katy wiih the leather lines—it is greatly regretted that he did so. It was an act for which we do not stand here as his apologists. But among all who regret these acts, no one does so more keenly than John Earls himself. This too was an act done in violent anger at the foolish intermeddling and whispering ofthe old woman. But he put her once again in the cellar. This place has been described to you, as a light, clean, Ory room ; and Grif- fin, one of the witnesses for the commonwealth, says that he could not tell exactly whether she was drunk at that time or not; but that John then said she was, and said1 he did not want to hurt her. As to the stove rake story of Susy Swenk, it is not true—it is evidently false. I have brought together in one view all the ill treatment that it is alleged Earls gave to Katy. There is a feeling so common to us all, to take the part of woman, if the subject of personal abuse from man, that we may always find it necessary to guard ourselves against the influence which such facts may have on our minds— and it is necessary here, peculiarly and strongly. The jury are to try the cause upon the evidence submitted to them ; but it is that evidence which tends to estab- lish the charge, and not evidence which may all be true and yet establish nothing. In all the parts of this evidence, is there one part th'at necessarily, or even probably, establishes a fore-determination concurrent with the acts themselves to take the life ofthe deceased? No honest, humane, man can say so. Does such testimony weigh a feather in the scale, upon a fair and candid enquiry to determine the guilt ofthe prisoner? I have remarked upon the excitement of the public mind against the prisoner. This kind of testimony may tend to feed this state of the public feeling It'may be counted upo.i, gentlemen, that you foo cannot but sympathise with the 133 public feeling; and thus may the evidence, though conceded a-s not coming near the question of guilt or innocence ofthe defendant, be expected by the learned and experienced counsel conducting the proseculion, to aid in producing a conviction. Gentlemen, you have higher duties assigned to you this day, than to minister to a diseased slate ofthe public mind. Your verdict is to be the subject often again and ag;>in in your coming years of futifre life, either of just and satisfactory recollections, or, if formed upon unsound and unwarranted conclusions, of" bitter regret. So we aver before you, that as we believe foe prisoner an innocent man of the crime charged against him, thus :dso do we asert, as lawyers, that the testimony so far as examined, in nowise sustains the charge. It details circumstances, alone, and these *o loose and unconnected with the question trying, that no presumptions can be fair- ly drawn from them by which the guilt ofthe prisoner can be established. It is the peculiar danger of this kind of evidence that resting of necessity upon every fact lhat may seem even in a remote degree to affect the question under examination, so •t may from its nature be supported by facts which have but a seeming and not a real connection with the accusation. So much the more is it apparent, therefore, that all superfluous evidence of the kind examined should be dismissed from your minds in making up your verdict. On the subject of threats, the same course may be adopted as just exhibited in relation to personal ill treatment. Susan Earls, the younger daughter, and Susan Swenk, both say thui Earls on some occasion said to Katy that he would lay her asleep. Susan Earls admits that Mrs. Marinus was present. It is well known to you, that if this threat hjid been repeated, and talked of by Katy before this child and thip Su- san Swenk, lhat they might easily admit it as an unquestioned fact, that John had used the expression:-: in the way stated; for by the testimony both of Susan and Mrs. Marinus it is found that John upon being charged by his wife with saying so, denied it, and said Katy I said no such thing, I said you had better been asleep than to have done or said the matter complained of. As to Susan Earls, of her disposi- tion, outraging all nature, violating every principle af filial goodness, she has-been trained by some, one, or by many, to give a coloring to every word and act, such as to suit the views of those, who, right or wrong, would take the life of her father. She has been brought to a state of feeling against her father, shocking to contem- plate, revolting to believe. How is it that no one of a?l the family, or acquaintance Of the family, know or believe this statement? As to Susan Earls, unsupported by her sister, and contradicted by Mrs. Marinus, her cousin, we are not bound to believe her. As to the agreement of the testimony of Susan Swenk, it makes that ofthe daughter only so much the worse; no one would think of appealing to that witness to corroborate the testimony ot another. Is her testimony the truth, as to the pump scene ? You know it is not. If she falsified that part, what security have you for any other part ? It is a rule of evidence well known, and res'ing upon the experi- ence of mankind, that if a witness swears false in a part of the evidence, material to e first fact, occurring in their order ou tins subject; and, 1 pray you gentlemen, ir these are candidly considered, what p.esumption, can be drawn from them against the oris- oner ? None--absolutely none. But the prisoner said he would go with then, wher- ever they wished to take hum; and until he became intoxicated from their frequent ili'iiiKing he did so. i«>-.j» He wished one or two of the arresting party to go with him by ids own house and.ng by the canal, and that the rest of the party should take the hill road and •us was a purpose natural and full of kindles to hh old mother. It w,\ „ cra.r th,t w* might not ^ *!-rmed at the great nua/oei of ru.n having him m cu^odj irx who were present. All these witnesses I believe state this fact in the same wav, and surely the testimony must undergo a process of torture and twisting to make any other meaning out of it; yet this innocent and laudable object ofthe prisoner, is attempted to be so wrested by the prosecution as that it shall be construed into an intention to escape. But this intention to escape is refuted by the testimony of all the witnesses. He drank liquor twice at his own house, once at the tavern of Mr. Mangus' before they reached 'his house, and again at Patrick Callahan's tavern only a mile from his house. So that, Mangus* tavern being three-fourths of a mile below Earls', he had taken four drinks of whiskey in walking one mile and three- fourths ; when they came to Mr. Thomas', therefore, nothing could be more in agree- ment with this str.te ofthe facts, than that the prisoner should fancy himself greatly in want of another drink. He began to conceit himself to be outrageously dry, and at the same time to act like a man'feeling the effect of what he had drunk, fie enacted divers fooleries in consequence of his drink. He wanted to jump down into the kitchen of Mr. Thomas—he laid down and declared if they would not let him have a drink there, they should carry him. Before he got there, he had run along the tow patn ; but the witnesses I believe all declare that they did not then believe he intended to escape from them—that he could not have done so at the place where the running took place is evident, for on the land side of the tow path there rises a perpendicular wail of rocks perhaps three hundred feet high, and upon the river side there would be a descent nearly perpendicular of from twenty to fifty feet, and perhaps more. But, when the party were in ihe open country, as from Mosteller's to Mangus', and from half a mile above Thomas' to Muncy, where an escape would have been peculiarly favored, from the nuiure ofthe ground, ihe country, the deep ravines, the dark thick woods upon the narrow bottoms, on the right of the river coming up, and the darkness of night, the absence of other assistants, the people ofthe neighborhood having of course retired to their houses, not an improper act was done by the prisoner—the witnesses all agree that he behaved well and went peaceahly along to the office of justice Crouse. Gentlemen, let us deal fairly with the prisoner—let us say, we will accord to his acts the same construction that in a similar situation, we would ask for ourselves. Let us be just, and let our justice be tempered with charity and manly feeling. If such shall be the state of your minds, and I have no reason to suppose it otherwise, then you will say that there is no evidence ofa meditated escape on the part of the prisoner, from tbe time of his arrest until his arrival at Muncy. At lhat place, and on the way to prison, the witnesses all say that nothing could be said against his con- duct. Since and during his long imprisonment his entire conduct has been without the occurrence of an act to injure him in the good opinion of those around him—like a man conscious of his innocence, he has with great tranquility and firmness heard jtne storm of high excitement and prejudice against him, and with the firm calmness of such a man, &o threatened and so sustained, wiih a humble reliance upon the pro- tection to be found under God, in the laws of his country, lie is at length brought before you for his trial. His declarations made in presence of those who arrested him are also relied upon by the counsel prosecuting the indictment. If they have failed, as they certainly have, to show an.v attempt or design to escape, yet they would rally in their defeat, and attempt to seize upon the rough unmeaning expressions of the prisoner, and horn them endeavor to extract an argument in support of their charge- We hold our personal security, and our lives, upon the most uncertain guaranty, if every idle word a man may say," without thought or reflection, is to work the forfeiture of both. They are both of them sifts of God, which man may not value. Let us then adopt no code of evidence, which may effect both directly, which may prostrate the one pud annihilate the other, without consenting first at least, that by the same principles and constructions, we would be willing individually to be tried. He said he had bought ratsbane, that he bought it frequently, that he had a right to do so, that he had used it for fishing, to kill the animals which so annoy a fisherman—that he would buy it when he pleased—and that if for such an act, ihey chose to hang him, they might do so, and kill him, as Johnny Morton used to say. This being in fact intended to assert his innocence, and at the same time to show his wit by quoting a phrase, so understood by those who heard him use it. These expressions for the collecting of which the commonwealth have summoned and examined all the arresting pari:,, escept ihe constable Turn r, ai.l Mr. Swisher, constitute the whole evidence found- ed u|,on declarations and confessions at that time. Do they admit that the prisoner was fjui!:y ? Was it the inlenlion of the primmer that they sucuikl have been so un- 136 derstood ? It is a rule of law respecting declarations and confessions that all ihrft was said shall be proved in order that a defendant shall not be convicted by an isola- ted sentence, which if taken in connection with the context, would clearly indicate a different meaning from the one proposed to be deduced. The prisoner on that occasion repeatedly asserted liis innocence. The irritation and warmth which he exhibited upon being informed that he had bought arsenic, is perfectly explained, when he rot only said that he tad often done so and had a right to do so, but, when in addition, we have proved that he did so ten years ago, and for the very same purpose.for which he averred he had bougiit the drug at the time in question. Not as in the case of Mina; the prisoner did not attempt to fabricate a falsehood, and t*sereen himself by an affected use ofthe drug, which in reality ne- ver existed ; Earls was no naturalist, he said nothing about preserving birds or beasts; he would have required some instruction to lie gracefully; he had not had the benefit of scientific lectures upon the antiseptic qualities of the mineral; the simple man did not even know its common name, and when charged with having bought arsenic, as a matter injurious to him, he repelled the charge with animation and anger, and said that he knew what he bought, that he had bought ratsbane; Honest, simple man, he knew indeed that he had bought what would kill muskrats and minks, and in having done that, he required to be further instructed to learn the criminality of the act. If these declarations can be tortured into a meaning hos- tile to the life ofthe prisoner, may 1 ask-the gentlemen of the jury, if confessions so pointless, so destitute of strength, and certainty of meaning, and bearing upon a different subject, to wit, the right of the defendant to an estate in land, would be deemed by them of sufficient merit to defeat a title by deed and possession ? Surely not. It would be required that the declarations themselves should contain their own illustration ; nothing would in ihe case proposed be left to \ ague and uncertain pre- sumptions. And can it be possible that we shall suffer our imaginations to be so excited, on this occasion, as that pointless declarations, which have not edge enough to affect a civil right, shall yet be sharp enough to cutaway the life ofthe prisoner ? Remember, gentlemen, that these declarations, and every other which took place at the time of the arrest, happened upon an occasion of great excitement and agita- tion of mind. Remember, also, that if the evidence is credited, the prisoner was much affected with drink. A man may be sober enough to possess all his muscular power in increased strength, while the energy of the mind shall be greatly impaired. These facts are to be taken into consideration in reviewing this part of the testi- mony. As to the purchase of arsenic, the act itself exhibits no criminality of design. We have shown by the testimony of Mr. Wilson, that in the year 1826 or 1H27, Earls was accustomed to use this drug in his business as a fisherman—that he had not only sold it to him for that purpose, but had seen the manner in which he employed it. By Jacob Hoffman, who at about that time lived near to where John Earls lived, and who also was a fisherman, that he then used the same drug and for the same pur- pose—and, further, that he Used it still for similar objects. We have proved by Mr; Doubt, and by the little boy, his son Sam, that John on the day preceding the deaih ofthe deceased, used what we must believe was arsenic, at his fish basket. That it was all used and the papers thrown in the river. By Mr. Carter we have shown tlut the prisoner accounted to him for his object in purchasing it-of him in Northumber- land, that he wanted to use it as a fisherman, if Earls had used arsenic, as a fisher- man, ten years ago—if Mr. Hoffman had so used it, and for a longer time, and still continues to use it for the same purpose, and if you believe that Earls so used it im. mediately up to the day of the death ofthe deceased, is there not a possession ofthe article shown consistent with the purest objects, and with the most perfect inno- cence r If you Delieve thesf facts, you must believe lhat the mere possession or purchase of arsenic is not inconsistent with the innocence of the prisoner. If any witness had seen the prisoner mix a white powder with the food or drink of the deceased, the nature of which was not then known, and this, too, but shortly before the last sickness ofthe deceased, then would there be a fact, in connection with the possession of the article, upon which you could have rested your opinion of guilt. As the facts now stand you have no such evidence. Vou have no facts t> evidence in relation to this matter, the deductions and presumptions necessarily arising from which, exclude the innocence ofthe defendant;" upon the great princi- ple which 1 announced to you, which would govern us in the examination of the testimony, you are then to acquit. For you are lo enquire into the evidence by iectmci principle of^jeasoii «..:J argument, and io en^i'.r.pute yourueives Iroiri 137 suppositions and prejudice; you are to deal with all the facts in evidence as men of science, and as well instructed criminal lawyers. The law and institutions of our government repose this confidence in you, where you are created judges of the law as well as the fact in criminal trials. The case of Miss Blandy, a lady of rank and character, was tried in 1752, before an eminent English judge. She was convicted upon doubtful, inconclusive, pre- sumpiive evidence ; she died at the foot of the gallows protesting her innocence. 1 o this day her execulion is remembered with sorrow and bitter regret—at this day she is universal:} believed to have been cruelly and wrongfully convicted. The case of Captaiv. Donnellan, was tried before judge Bulleb, in 1781, and upon the same kind of evidence. That trial, too, has left upon the public mind the same impres- sion, that he also was the victim of excited prejudice, and erroneous principles of evidence. Think not, gentlemen, that should you give to the facts in evidence before you, a weight which legally they do not merit, that you will be supported in your verdict of "guilty" by subsequent confessions ofthe prisoner. Treasure not up this error as a consolation in the after years of your lives, when the solemnities of this trial shall be over, but not forgot. We have been told by the prosecuting attorney that there are men among you who could do their duty at the cannon's mouth. Be it so; I honor the integrity and independence of the jury ; I seek not to arouse your fears of the bitterness of after thought, but to stimulate your judgment to its legitimate exertion. Has a homicide been committed? Did Mrs. Earls die by poison? My object has been to show that even if so, the evidence does in nowise support the charge against th« prisoner. The testimony of the medical witnesses in relation to the anatomical in- vestigations after death has been left under the care of my learned colleagues. Though in nowise qualified for the task, the chemical examinations of the same wit- nesses, was, with the assistance of my colleagues, submitted to me. In this solemn and affecting trial, it is pleasant to find one agreeable incident. I take plea- sure, gentlemen, in noticing some ofthe witnesses who have been sworn on these subjects before you, although they stand not in need of commendation from me. I cannot entirely suppress the expression of the pleasure it has given me, to witness the acquirements and scientific knowledge exhibited by all the medical gentlemen examined before you. It is a proof that in several of the instances referred to, we have gentlemen born among us and educated in the midst of us, and others who have come to reside among us, who are qualified to perform the important duties which they have assumed, to the great advantage ofthe society in which they live. Dr. Lud- wig, Dr. Hepburn, and Mr. Kittoe, were respectively examined with such care, as we had it in our power, by the learned counsel for the commonwealth, by his hon- or the president judge, and by the counsel for the defendant. They have sustained this examination with great credit to themselves and with advantage to the case try- ing. From all this examination, you have seen how difficult it is, in the contents of the stomach ofa deceased person, to delect the actual presence of arsenic. You have seen that not any one test or agent can be relied upon. You have seen that all and every of the tests employed in the examination of the subject here, have been at some one time each relied upon as conclusive and certain. You have seen that oth- er experiments have succeeded to demonstrate the uncertainty of each. Lastly, the reduction of the metvl has been triumphantly announced as an absolute certainty. You have found by the testimony of the witnesses referred to, and by the books which we have read to you, that even that test cannot by itself be relied upon. You have metallic crusts before you so much resembling the arsenical metal, that they could not be distinguished from each other, yet shown lo have been made from anoth- er mineral. The nature of man is such, that he contents himself not with the labor ofthe past, nor with the acquisitions of the present. The natural sciences, resting Upon observation and induction, continually supply the means of their progressive improvement. The time has not yet arrived when the presence of this mineral poi- son may be certainly affirmed in a post mortem, examination of a human stomach. We cannot understand the rule by which such a fact is attempted to bs established, lhat although all the testsbe respectively admitted to be inconclusive and uncertain, yet if these tests are taken together, they may be certain and may he relied upon. h is this, that anv given number of uncertainties may be uiultjplL'd by each other, S 13* and that the product resembling none of the terms employed, shall be a certain re- sult.* But, if the jury should believe that Mrs. Earls died of poison by arsenic, still it in nowise establishes the fact that it was administered by the prisoner or with his knowledge. There remains to be considered a subject introduced into this trial as the motive for the commission of this supposed homicide. This has been so intro- duced because no other adequate cause can be charged upon the prisoner. And upon the admitted principle that all ihe important acts of men are founded either upon one influencing motive or upon compound motives. The court have permitted a third person to be introduced by the testimony in the cause—Maria Morita. The prosecution have endeavored to show an attachment of the prisoner to this girl; they have endeavored to show an improper intercourse be- tween the prisoner and her ; these acts so endeavored to be proved by them are not proved without contradiction. As to the scene represented by Suman, it is" con- tradicted not only by the fact of other persons being present, to wit, Sabina and Henrietta Moritz, sleeping in the same room and bed with Maria, but by their evi- dence that no such scene took place. As to the stable scene it was in the dark, 8Dd it ivas not probable that 'he witness could identify the person of Earls or even that of Maria. As to the statement of Mr. Donley he goes no further than to say he saw a man who looked like Earls coming out ofthe woods at a distance both from hi:,', and the girl. The whole intimacy is just such as would be described in any cvse where people have more to do with the business of their neighbors than their own. Of course you have had, at the least, every act'of this kind, supported or un- supported in fact, given in evidence. There is not such a wonderful deal of delica- cy and charity in the world as to suffer such acts not to be brought into this trial. I may venture to say, that the prosecution have rciied upon this matter as the master and controlling point of their cause. The gentleman, Mr Armstrong, who has opened the argument for the commonwealth has been pleased to introduce our attempt to show that Earls was not lawfully married to the deceased. Having done so, we are released from any obligation not to treat of a matter not in evidence. Take our willingness to prove all that the witnesses knew of the matter, and they might have been, the one a member of the family of Earls, and the otiier married to his niece, and we eould easily have shown what was known in the family. In a word, no person who witnessed our offer, and heard all that was said, can believe anything else than what was said, that the wife of John Earls is yet alive and living in this state. Take it thus, then where is the motive on the part of Earls to take the life of the deceased, to get clear from marriage obligations that did not bind him neither in law nor in fact ? The gentleman has rounded off some showy sentences on ;his subject. But, after all, if Earls was not lawfully married to Mrs. Earls, he could have no induce- ment to commit such a crime as is charged upon him. If any of the established cir- cumstances be wholly repugnant to the supposed fact, the hypothesis cannot be true, 1 Starkie, Ev. 483. If you believe from our offer, and frum lite argument of the lpntleman, that the wife of Earls is still living, the above quoted rule applies as to y, olive. We have nothing to do with the morality of the question, whether Earls was living with Mrs. Earls and lawfully married. The cornmijiwealth have not charged in the indictment that the deceased w*s the wife of lh~ prisoner, nor have they attempted to proie it by a single witness, nor is it admitted by the defendant or his counsel. A presumption of marriage in a civil case, from ac:.s, cohabitation and ihe birth of children, may be presumed under many circumstances ; but we deny that this can be done in a criminal prosecution, end that, too, a capi.al one. Nothing is to be presumed against innocence and human life; all must consist of positive proof. It will be in vain to talk of this position ofthe defendant, fixing the crime of adul- tery upon him with the deceased. That is not our present concern. It takes away the very found ..ion of the evidence Against him, in reference to Maria Mwritz and the deceased. It is vain to talk of the illegitimacy of the children of the deceased, be- cause if their birth has not been in lawful wedlock, no silence would invest them with legal rights. * in the course of the trial »nd in the argument, Mr. Ellis referred wry fully to authorities to support the principles oi thj foregoing synopsis of his argument. On the subject ofthe tests, he referred chiefly to the 2d volume of Dr. Beck's Ji-ledi- cut Jurisprudence, p. 203, lo 211, to Mr if. Chapman's trial, p. 66, in noie, to Henrys Chemistry, 222, 223, 528, 5"i9, 330. Ti 139 Thus, gentlemen,! have attempted to show that you cannot rely upon any part of the evidence delivered against the prisoner, upon which to found your verdict against him—a verdict to cut up by the root all his hope of life—to close his eyes forever upon th« world around us—lo consign him, upon the uncertainty of loose presumptions, to an early and ignominious death—and to take from these little children the last pa- rent and protector left to .hem. in the argument, of which the preceding is a sketch, Mr. Ellis referred to 2 Star- kie, Ev. 959, 960, to i Starkie, 506, 507, 510. If the jury should be ot opinion that Mrs. Earls died of poison, he left the enquiry whether she had taken the poison of her own act to his colleagues. Mr. Ellis examined all the evidence much more minutely and in detail, than is indicated in this sketch of his argument, which is intended merely to give an outline of it. This may be easily conceived when it is known that he, was about tight hours engaged in delivering it. ' SPEECH ©F A3JSOW V. FARSQffg, ESQ. FOR. THE PRISONER, With submission to the court, And you gentlemen ofthe jury :— Save us, save my unfortunate client, gentlemen of the jury, from the tender mercy of the commonwealth, which has been so kindly vouchsafed on this occasion. We have been repeatedly told by the counsel for the prosecution, during the progress of this trial, and it has been reiterated in a five hours' speech by the Attorney General, that they ask not the conviction of the prisoner—that every kindness and compassion has been manifested towards him, ai:d all the liberality which the purest sympathy could dictate* has been extended to him by a benignant commonwealth. For the prisoner we claim no such kindness, nor ask either compassion or mercy from the prosecution—nor have we received it during this protracted trial either from them or any other source. All we demand for the unfortun-.te prisoner is Jus- tice—stern, unbending justice; which he claims as a sacred right at your hands. It is upon you, who are in criminal cases the judges of the " law and the/«cf,'' that he relies for a faithful administration of the principles of criminal jurisprudence which irrevocably fix his fate, and forever seal his doom. You possess not the power of extending mercy to any one accused of crime —so, on the other hand, you ought to g iard every avenue of the heart against any prejudices that perchance might steal ur.perceived wifrdu your bosonfis, and warp y:;ur better judgments, and give a direc- tior»to your decision, not warranted by the evidence or ihe principles ot immutable justice. When we are told by the counsel for the commonwealth, of their great mercy and liberality lo the prisoner, and the extreme indulgence ofthe Court, on mutters of evidence, in what does it consist? 1 deny that any favor or indulgence has been granted to him, except what is guaranteed by the constitution anddaws of his.country — nor hardly that. Nothing has been claimed by the counsel for the pris- oner but what they thought was warranted by the rules of evidence, and the law of the land, nor nothing granted by the opposing counsel or the Court, that was not sustained by auihnri'y, aor all that we think (with great submission to their Honors' decision,) ought to have been decided in favor of the prisoner. Conscious ofthe in- nocence of our client, we feel satisfied to rest his chances of an acquittal on the just- ness of his cause, and the want of proof to sustain the present charges preferred agai;ist him, without an appeal to your feelings, your passions, your clemency or sympathy. Even if I possessed those oratorical powers, which seem the gift of high heaven to some gentlemen ol ihe profession; of arousing the all fervent feelings of the heart—or fanning the glowing fire of compassion in the soul, for injured inno- cence—or breathing in your ears as on the soilness of a summer's breeze, that mercy which man should exlefid to his fellow man, as he expects it hereafter from the Almighty ruler ofthe Univeise—or attempt, to paint to your view, the grief and sad- ness ofthe children of this afflicted man, who amid his distress and the persecution of an infuriated populace, have in your presence clung around him, still owning and acknowledging him as the parent of their infancy—I should prove recreant to the tru3t reposed in me by the prisoner at the bar to indulge them. For it \b by ;:•; jiddre:^. to you:' reason and your judgment, that v. fayoubK niXi-arce can be e*- pcc.'.d for the ck.'cndanU 110 111 discussing this highly important cause, my duty requires that I should argue it as I would any other ; depending on a dry detail of facts and fixed principles of law, to govern in its decision. After the lucid and eloquent speeches of my colleagues, in behalf of the prisoner, perhaps, gentlemen of the jury, I shall trespass upon your time and weary your at- tention in exerting my humble efforts for him. But a high regard for professional duty, due to him whom I represent, urges me to place his cause in its true aspect before you. And pardon me, if I again solicit you, to guard your minds aganst im- pressions made upon them by facts not in evidence. And caution you not to be borne away by that unchecked current of popular prejudice, which seems ready to bear him to the abyss of destruction, unheard, untried and uncondemned. 'The multitudes which have for two weeks past, thronged this " temple of justice," not only to gratify an idle curiosity, but with a gangrened prejudice, to irritate and ex- cile the whole body ofthe populace to a dangerous state of popular feeling; and that by agents little less guilty than the prisoner is charged with being, urged on to a point, disgraceful to our county—and all tending if possible, to exert an unfavora- ble influence an the oninds of this jury against the prisoner. It is of that feeling, of that spirit, which I say to this jury beware. With these few brief remarks, I shall proceed to state to you the principles on which we predicate the prisoner's defence,. I. I shall contend, that all the evidence is circumstantial—and that in order to authorize a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be so con- clusive, that they cannot be true and the prisoner innocent. Further, that thos^ circumstances must be such as to exclude every other supposition or hypothesis than the guilt of the prisoner—and all these must be made out by the commonwealth, be- fore the prisoner need offer any testimony to explain a single circumstance establish- ed against him. II. That the facts and circumstances must be proved so conclusively that there is not a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, that the prisoner is the criminal agent. HI. That the foregoing propositions are based upon the assumed fact, that the deceased came to her death by poison—which fact is not conceded, but we shall con- tend that the jury may fairly entertain a doubt, that the deceased died of poison. IV. That the facts proved by the testimony introduced by the defendant, explain all the prominent circumstances given in evidence by the commonwealth—and show that there might be some other criminal agent on whom the circumstantial evidence would fix much stronger suspicion of guilt, than the prisoner at the bar. V. That the testimony introduced by the prisoner, ought to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury of his guilt, and that doubt operates as an acquittal by the law ofthe land. It cannot be questioned that circumstantial evidence is much inferior to positive; and, although I concede that there are cases in which a jury are justified in convict- ing on testimony of this description, still it ought to be clear and indubitable, and the circumstances of the most convincing and satisfactory character, and preclude all doubt of the prisoner's guilt. Before I proceed particularly to consider my first proposition, permit me to call the attention of the court and this jury to some authorities on this point. Here Mr. Tarsons, read from 1 Starkie, on evidence, pages 505, 506 and 507, also, from pages 499, 501, 502, 511 and 512. Phillips Evidence, (appendix)pages 43 and 58. M'JYalh/ on evidence, 579. And also, read the remarks of the late Judge Brackenridge, upon circumstantial evidence, from his miscellaneous writings. From those authorities you learn, gentlemen ofthe jury, the great certainty requi. site in order to authorize a convictibn on such evidence; and as is very justly re- marked by Mr. Siarkie, " it is the actual exclusion of every other hypothesis which invests mere circumstances with the force of proof." Is the proof before you of that certain, determinate and unerring character ? Does it exclude every other con- elusion than the guilt of the defendant ? There are five classes of circumstances relied upon by the commonwealth for a conviction. I. The facts that transpired on the evening when Mrs. Earls died. II. The conduct of the prisoner after the decease of his wife, and at the crave yard. D 111. The threats and violence used towards his wife, previous to her death, his abandonment of her, and attachment to another female. IV. The fact that the prisoner purchased arsenic 8 short time before the death c: Ins wife. 141 V. The conduct ofthe prisoner at the time of his arrest. It is admitted by the counsel for the commonwealth, that no one of these circum- stances is in and of itself sufficient to convict the prisoner; but they allege that taken collectively they authorize a verdict of "guilty." i will consider each of those various circumstances according lo the foregoing classification ; and 1. What were the facts and circumstances that transpired on the evening when Mrs. Earis died. It is clearly in evidence that during the afternoon preceding her death, John Earls1 and his two little boys, were away from home, they were up at the fish basket, and were met by Mrs. Callahan, about sun down, as she was returning from Earls' 10 her own house. The family meal is prepared by old Mrs. Earls, after candle light, and the prisoner and his little children as usual surround the family board. The old lady had prepared some chocolate for their supper, and before the family began their frugid repast, she dipped some from the vessel in which it was placed on the table, into a pint bowl for the deceased; this was put by her on the stove, while the family were eating their supper. The prisoner according to the testimony of the common- wealth, did not leave-the room; he was already seated at tbe table; enquired of his mother what Katy was to have for supper, and in the presence of all the family, that portion for the deceased was prepared by the old lady beiself. After the prisoner had finished his meal his mother asked him to hold the candle and light her up stairs, while she carries to the sick room of the deceased that which had been provided for her. Was there anything unusual in this, dr calculated to excite suspicion ? Is there a fact connected with the supper arrangements, or of preparing the bowl of chocolate for the deceased, that is out of the ordinary course of events ? And is a jury to infer guilt from circumstances, that equally indicate innocence ? It has been asserted by the counsel for the commonwealth, that because the prisoner took with him his little sons to the fish basket before they had their dinner, (although he took the care of giving them a piece, perhaps sufficient to satisfy their hunger before they started,) it is a strong circumstance of a guilty and murderous heart in him. And surely none but the suspicious eyes of the prosecuting attorney could discover the semblance of guilt in this. Was it cruelty to the children ? Surely not, for they complained not of hunger; or rather, to draw the strongest inference from n, was it not evidence ofa childish curiosity in them to accompany their papa on a fishing expedition at the sacrifice r.f a dinner, which probably, would not be required by them after the bountiful provision made by the father. We are also told by the learned gentlemen, that ihe bowl of chocolate which old Mrs. Etuis prepared for the supper of the deceased contained ihe fatal potion which ended her life. Did the prisoner prepare it ? Had he the least agency in its preparation, or in setting it before his wife ? Was it possible (if the testimony produced Dy the commonwealth can be relied upon,) that he could have placed the arsenic in the bowl without de- tection ? The chocolate was cooked in the same vessel with that of which ail the family partook that evening unharmed! Old Mrs. Earis took the part allotted for the deceased from the vessel herself; she placed it upon the stove. During these acts, John Earls was sitting at the table, the candles were lighted. Two of the children and the old lady on oath have declared, that nothing was put in the bowl by the father during this period ; nor could he have done i: without detection. It was the old lady, the witness for the commonwealth, which removed this poisonous bowl from the stove and placed it on a waiter to carry up stairs, together with some articles of food which had been-prepared for the deceased. During all these.arrangements the prisoner was at the table eating hia supper. At what time, at what period, and when was the precious moment seized upon by him, to drop the poisoned dm- within the chaliced cup, unseen, unobserved, and undetected by human eye? It was said bv old Mrs. Earls, in one part of her testimony, lhat after she had done eating she'took the bowl of chocolate from the stove and placed it upon the waiter on the table in the kitchen, and then put upon it the other articles ot food ; that she completed her supper first, and afler John Earls had fimsned his supper he was walking about, although riie is not certain that he had done eating before she called him to light her up stairs. Hence the learned counsel who has addressedyou for tbe commonwealth, says, lhat after the chocolate was placed upon the waiter the prisoner as with " a murderous step" stole into the kitchen and put the arsenic in the chocolate. But from this position, that gentlemen is driven, by the fact sworn to by Marv Ann Earls, who says, her father did not leave ihe table, un- til her grandmother called him to light her up stairs with all the provisions upon the waiter. Nor does the old lady assert with any degree ot posiliveness that John 143 hi J completed his meal before she called him; and what shows conclusively that sii:.-h is the case, is the fact that she asserts in relation to herself, which is that she ate but little supper, and to use her own language, "got done a good bit first" and immediately prepared the supper intended for Katy, all of which was done within a few minutes, and perhaps seconds, from the little she did, and the very few prepar- ations that were made by ha: But the old lady stated on the cross examination, that she could not tell whether John rose from the table first, or not; she remarked that "he usually was done eating first." And Mary Ann Earls expressly swears, that her tether sat at the table till she had done eating; and in her own simple narration of the facts she siys, " when papa got up from the table, granny she set the bowl on ihe waiter, and said now John you light me up." If we take a survey ofthe whole testimony of the o'1 lady and Mary Ann, the position assumed by the opposing coun- sel as to the time when they allege the prisoner put the poison in the chocolate is untenable Independent of all this, there is not the least particle of evidence to •.variant the supposition that he did the act. Why are wild and fanciful prestimp- lions liKe these lo be indulged in, when truth and certainty are requisite to sutain this indictment ? I deny that there is a probability that the prisoner did put the poison within the chocolate as assumed by the gentlemen who has addressed you for the prosecution, while the old lady was making ready the provision for the deceased, even if you carry the "doctrine of probabilities" to its most indefinite extent. 'Then when did time, space, or opportunity, offer for the prisoner to do the act ? Old Mrs. Earls, swears, that when John was lighting her up stairs, he walked behind her; that she saw nothing put in the chocolate, that in fact he" had no opportunity of putting it in, and none was put in ; she then placed the waiter on the chair, beside the bed of the deceased, and they both came down. Can any fair and unprejudiced mind draw an inference of guilt from these circumstances ? After this, Miss Sechler came into the house; as she entered the door of the room, she states, that John Earls went up stairs; in about one minute she followed, and with her, his eldest daughter; when she entered the room John was sitting a short distance from the bed, talking with his wife; she also states, that he appeared very kind 10 her ; that the deceased was eating her sapper and after she had done, he carried the waiter down stairs. These facts we are told indicate guilt. When the wife of the prisoner was confined to her room, was there anything out of the ordinary course of events for the hus- band to be in the room, when a neighbor calls ? It is said he repaired to her room, as soon as he saw Miss Sechter enter ihe house, but the evidence is lhat she entered llie room first, and that Earls went from the kitchen up stairs, consequently they were not in the same apartment; nor is there the slightest reason to suppose that he sav/ Miss Sechler, when she came into the home, or that he knew she intended going to the room of his wife. Why should he go to the room, then, if he had done the murderous' deed; wou^d he have any fears of its deiection during the drinking of the chocolate ; a drug perfectly tasteless, which could be discerned by no human being mingled with chocolate, or would he have desired to set by and see his wife in the presence of his daughter and a stranger, drinking the cup of death, or coolly view his felon's work, or see her, undisturbed, and unmoved, draining to. the dregs, the liquid poison which in a few short hours, would make her a breathless corpse. Call him murderer, call him fiend, or what you please, 1 deny that John E.iris could have ever ,-et by and seen all this. U;mgh as his manners are, hard as his lot has been, and unrefined as were his associates, he ha-, a feeling heart; evidence of which has often betn disclosed in this cause, amid all tbe wickedness ihe prosecution would ascribe to him. Nor is it consistent with a felon's feelings, or a criminal's conduct ; the black deed is done, fear takes possession of bite soul, and he looks not on ihe work of his destruction calmly and unconcerned, while ihe fangs of death are seizing its victim. But it is said that he carried the waiter down slairs; hence you are to infer that some guilty rmnive induced him to do this service. What object could he have * Miss Sechler, Mary Ann and the old lady, all coi.cur in the faci, that the de- ceased drank all the chocolate—hence there was no part of the poisoned iiquid left to be disposed of. Did Ite fear that some particles ofthe white poisonous suostauce would atihera to the vessel used ? Where is Die evidence that he cLshsed it, of wa-hed the bowl ? Is it not in pro f by the old lady, that she wadied the dishes, that night, and was washing them when Kaiy was taken sick ? Is it not in proof that the old woman was in ihe kitchen, doe3 she swear to mv/ such thing ? Wa.j, their snytLi;*?, unusud io: a man in his nurabie circums^.'.c-j tj car-;, from du room of lib ssuU. wise 143 the waiter from which she had taken her meal—particuUirly when no nurse was in attendance ? Why then impute an improper motive to this defendant t Gentlemen of the jury, we now come to a more interesting, and to all concerned a more important part of the scenes of that evening. In about two hours after this last meal was taken by the deceased she became sick and commenced vomiting— the prisoner as well as the mother repaired to her room ; every attention and kind- ness was manifested by the prisoner for his wife, during the few distressed hours that she survived this fatal attack. It was suggested by the deceased, that mint tea would allay the vomiting with which she was sorely afflicted, and seemed ready to sever the cords of life. The prisoner immediately offers his aid and prepares it. But ihe commonwealth have spread upon this record, that in certain tei., the poison was also administered, as set forth in the second count in this indictmeiit. And it has been alleged by ihe opposinRJcounsel, that, not satisfied with poisoning the cho- colate, and when he saw the wile of his bosom writhing with pain and agony insup- portable, ard when thus kindly offering to administer an opiate, to allevia'e that ex- cruciating bodily distress, he taints it with the same death dealing drug, that had been used as the means of her destruction. But how miserably such a charge has been sustained by evidence. It is conclusively proved by Mary Ann Earls, thut her father took a clean tin cup and placed the mint leaves in it. that she saw the cup and nothing was in it, that she was by and saw her father pour the water on the mint leaves, and saw him pour the tea from a cup into a saucer, and give it to her mother to drink. The deceased complained lhat the taste was bitter. The old lady then observed that perhaps it was "pepper mint" instead of "spear mini"—and th.it she had some which was really the "spearmint." She then prepared some, and that also was given to Mrs. Earls who complains of it as'havingthe same bitter and offend- ing taste ; in preparing that the prisoner had no agency, if the" proof offered by the commonwealth can be relied upon. Then, l ask, does this support the second count in the indictment, of administer- ing the poison in tea? Is not that charge repudiated by the testimony of the'.prose- cution ? Those remedies for pain prove ineffectual, and the deceased suggests that laudanum may perhaps alleviate her suffering. With that attention which has mark- ed the prisoner's course through the whole of this deeply interesting scene, he im- media ely gels it; prepares for her fifty drops, (a portion which Dr. Hepburn tells you was suited to ihe desperate state of her disease.) The family dispensatory is exhausted, and ihe often tried remedies avail not. The prisoner proposes to call the aid and assistance of their neighbors, but to this the deceased objects, alleging *' that she hoped soon to be better ;" a fleeting hope for her more deceptive than a moonlight shadow ; and why she appeared to indulge in ii will be for another branch of this argument. At length, without the consent of his wife, he calls in Mrs. Kebec- ca Sechler, the nearest neighbor. This old dady looks at the deceased ai.d can prescribe nothing, and advises that Mrs. Callahan should be sent for as being more skilled in the healing art than herself. 'To this the prisoner immediately assents and goes for her; although a more deadly foe lo this unfortunate man walks not on earth than tier Irish ladyship, Mrs. Callahan, alias Mrs. Uyan. He calls up h'er hus- band who meets him in the bar room, and here is a scene of passing events on which the counsel for the prosecution have commented as if it were the turning point of their cause. And what is i', "John tells Patrick lhat his eld woman is sick, and is she bad savs Patrick, yes she is, indeed, says John, and 1 want a quart of whiskey,1' and they both without delay repair to the cellar to draw it, and this is thought an ii resistible argument of guilt against the prisoner. Is it not a kict and is not lhat usUbiii'-.tHl clearly i:> proof here, when one of a family is sick in the'neighborhood where the prisoner tes.des, they always buy whiskey or liquor of some description ? 'These were tbe habits of the place -, the prisoner and even the deceased had been accustomed to its use. Whether the act was justifiable or not. requires no considt- ration here—is it evidence of guilt against the prisoner? Clearly not. He did net suppose thai she was in a dangerous situation, and although he knew she was seri- ously id, and perhaps avaiiy days might :oil by befo;-e she would be restored to s health, from all that had passed he could not apprehend a fatal termination to her supposed malady. Himself and family and his m-ighbors were watching beyond the midnight hour; nature was we cry because deprived of rest. Was there any thing unusual, or what hid not happened in thwusands of instances before in this country, that ardent spirits were purchased on t; e occasion when one of the family is sick ? And why, we enquire, snouid this an'■*■' be brought i-s an evidencw of guilt agaiitst John Earls, or as pi oof Mint he was iiidiiiv.rc^t to the fate of his v. lie ? Cut as 900.1 I 144 as the whiskey is drawn he ealh Mrs. Callahan, requests her. to go with him to his house, and describes in his own plain and simple language the illness of his wife. On the road down he speaks of going for a physician ; he remarks that when they lived in Milton Dr. Dougal was his family physician ; it was too far to send there on this emergency ; he then enquires of Mrs. Cailahan relative to the merits of Dr. Lud- wig. She gives him a character for correctness of practice which no one doubts but that he deserves. And from the brilliant display which we have had of that gentle- man's high medical attainments on his examination in this cause, a more distinguished man in his profession could not be found in our county. He resolves at once to send for him; they pass on to the house of the prisoner, and before he reaches the threshold of that door, which, one shorl half hour before he liad passed, his daugh- ter meets him and communicates the sad intelligence that her mother is dead. He exclaims "it is not so!" and hastens to the room with all the power he possessed ; and as he arrives at the door of the room which had been the lodging of his wife, old Mrs. Sechler, with the mind of a prejudiced witness, would endeavor to make you believe lhat his conduct was improper; to give you her own language " he gave some terrifying stamps and blasphemed." And is this so ? The enquiry was made in what his blasphemy consisted. And she tells you that he cried out O, Lord God ! Jesus Christ! Wonderful blasphemy ! To whom, 1 ask, should his supplication be directed, but to Him who controls and governs the universe, who holds the destiny of the humblest creature in his hands ? Did he make those exclamations in an irre- verent manner? No. Mrs. Sechler, with the jaundiced vision through which she viewed every thing', dare not so tell you. It is im evidence from another witness that tears flowed from his eyes, when thus he called upon his Lord and his God, whom all are bound to worship. This, in John Earls, is called blasphemy, which in any other individual would have been hailed as an evidence of the most devoted piety and holy reverence for that Being who gives life and takes it away at pleasure, who "even numbereth the most minute particles of matter" Why are a jury thus called upon to distort the conduct ofa man filled with grief, and when suddenly sur- prised with the death of the reputed wife of his bosom? Another circumstance is sworn to by Mrs. Sechler, which is brought to bear against him on this occasion. She tells you that while Earls was standing by the fire the tin cup containing mint tea was upset, and that the witness saw the water passing on the floor, but who did it she does not know. And you are called upon to infer that the prisoner did the act; of that inference the Commonwealth are entitled to the full benefit; for if ha did, he could have had no guiity object to accomplish, for the tea that he had made for the deceased had been poured out of the window when its taste proved obnox. ious to Mrs. Earls, and before the old lady made liers for the deceased. Then, gen- tlemen of the jury, scrutinize even with a jealous eye the whole conduct of the pri- soner, from the hcurofncon on the day of Mrs. Earls'death, down to the period when he entered the chamber where his wife by a breathless corpse, and I ask you in the spirit of justice and candor, is there anything from which a fair inierence of guilt might be drawn ? 'Then why cast imputations on the conduct of this man from circumstances that would have scarcely been recollected had they happened to any other individual. II. The second class relied upon is the conduct of the prisoner after the decease of his wife and at the grave yard. Let us examine and see what his deportment w?s. After the first bursts of feeling liad passed away, when a proper period had elapsed, other females are sent for, and among those that came to the house were M;-*r: Mangus, Mrs. Mowrey, and Mrs. Page. T/uring the peiio-i that passed after they we're sent for and their arrival, nothing par- ticular transpired, from which anyone asserts his guilt appears. When Mis. Mangus and ihe others arrived at the house, they nil concur in telling you that there was a light in the room down stairs ; that John Earis was there alone ; that they looked in ibrongh the window and saw him walking the room in great distress and crying. Is this the man whom the counsel for the commonwealth have told you stood like a "marble statue," an! saw, unmoved, the scene of grief and death around him? Were those " crocodile tears," or his agony feigned for hypocritical purposes ? No. Earis had left the chamber of death, and unobserved or unsuspected by any human being, shut himself within his room, :-.<\<.\ was there pouring forth the sorrow of hi* heart in the presence of none but the all seeing eye of the Omniscient Creator 5 .here in solitude and silence he was lamenting over the death of bis wife, when by accident those women looked through the. window and saw him giving vent to the overflowing gritf of his heart. 1 Cdil upon you, gentlemen of the jury, to say 145 whether this portrays the character of a felon, and stamps the indelible disgrace »f murder on John Earls. On the contrary, is it not all-powerful evidence of innocence, and does it not go most clearly to illustrate the fact that he was ignorant ofthe cause of her dea'.a, and that he viewed it as a mysterious dispensation of the wise disposer of human events, in thus suddenly depriving him of the partner of his early years? Give then, I pray you, the prisoner the full benefit of that inference in bis behalf. Afd so far as 1 know." This witness does not say that her general cha- racter for truth and veracity is bad, which is the only matter that can be given in evidence to impugn the veracity of a witness ; he says it is bad as far as he knows. This man has not pretended that he was acquainted with her reputation generally; it is merely his own individual opinion, and not her general reputation, which is the only thing that could be legally enquired of, and of that this witness by his own admission is ignorant. Mis. Callahai-, who from her own acknowledgment on oath here is living in in open state of adultery, is the next witness called to give evidence as to character. A wo- mm who, herself devoid of reputation, is called to speak of one ofher own sex, and what does she say? Why " Mrs. Marinus does not bear a good character in her neigh- borhood," when she admits that her acquaintance has been but short with Mrs. M., and when she stayed but a few months in that part of the country—when Mrs. Cal- lahan never heard three persons speak of it in the world, and then only to reiterate the scandal propagated by her own slanderous breath, which would pollute if possi- ble the reputation of ihe individual whose name she would only mention. Jacob Hogendobler is tbe next that is called, and he admits that he knows nothing about Mrs. Marinus'character. John Shuman is the next, and he knows nothing of her general character. George Lilly is next called, and he utters not a word against her. Those are all the witnesses called by the commonwealth to. invalidate the testimony of Mrs. Marinus, or to injurs her reputation. To support her, we have introduced Mr. Doubt and Mr. Mangus, who have known her for some time; they are men of business, and whose acquaintance through the neighborhood is much more general and extensive, they tell you her character is good, they have not heard it called in question, and Mr. Mangus says he would believe her on her oath. Then upon the subject of character most unquestionably the weight of evidence is in her favor; she is corroborated in her statements by others who stand unimpeached, therefore, it is the duty of the jury to give full credit to all she said. Alexander Marinus, stands still clearer from suspicion ; even less has been said against him; and from the candid, fair and impartial manner in which he has given testimony, little doubt can be entertained of the truth of all he has said. Then here are five witnesses, who are entitled to the fullest credit, that all concur in establish- ing the fact of those declarations by the deceased, of a desire to be removed from this world, and of a determination to sever the cords of life with her own hands. Jf she died in consequence of the presence of arsenic, from whom did she receive it ? Who administered the deadly potion, and mingled the fatal cup, which depriyed her of life in this sudden manner ? Does any one dotibt but that she was her own destroyer ? Another circumstance on which we rely to show that the deceased might have committed suicide, is the fact that she had arsenic in her possession which it is alleged was the mean3 that effected her death. It is conclusively established that many months anterior to th'13 melancholy affair, Mrs. Earls had this destructive drug in her possession ; she threatened to make use of it for the purpose of. poisoning the cow of a neighbor. She wished to con- ceal it from her husband, and when by accident he happened to find the paper which contained it, she at ones in a rude rrunrur takes it from him, makes no explana. tion of her conduct, and gives no reason why she does not wish him to know the contents of the paper. But in speaking to her neice, Mrs- Marinus, a day or-two after, the secret is disclosed. She states why she kept the article—that it was for the purpose of destroying Maria Moritz- The hatred of the deceased towards her, was of the most malignant nature, (whether.without a sufficient cause is not for me to determine;) no time or opportunity seems to have offered favorable to gratify the bitterness of her anger against this female, arising from jealousy ofthe most savage kind. Is it strange that Mrs. Earls should have destroyed herself? In cases of death by poison, the possession of tbe article, unaccounted for on some rational ground, is. strong evidence of guilt. (See Ryan's Med. Jur. :l.':C ) And why, when there is a great'proba'blity of self-murder, should not the si-me circumstance have its full weight! vhv not receive it with all the force to establish the one crime, as the other, when u 154 fctey are Ofthe same grade, and deemed equally offensive to God and man ? Let tha argument have its full effect for the prisoner, as it is intended to have against him. Is not the presumption arising from her possession ofthe article, too conclusive to be passed in silence t For the sake of the deceased, I would gladly be willing that the grave, more dark and concealing than the veil of charity, should hide this last fault and cover her every crime ; but when to conceal and hide them, would endan- ger the fate ofthe living, a duty which we owe the prisoner and the world, requires that this last and fatal crime should be brought to the public view. Gentlemen of the jury, having brought to your consideration all the prominent facts and circumstances which operate against the prisoner* and those which arise from the testimony that has been produced in his favor, can any unprejudiced mind say that the circumstances are of that conclusive character which would authorize a verdict of guilty against him ? Does not a reasonable doubt exist of his guilt ? If so, then the law ofthe land, the solemnity of your duty on oath, requires a verdict of acquittal. There are a number of authorities upon the subject of doubts that arise in the minds of jurors in criminal cases, and suffer me to call your attention to a few on that subject. See M'Nally'a evidence, p. 578 ; 1 Starkie, 514 ; and a very learn- ed American judge hcs said that if one juror entertains a doubt, it should operate as an acquittal of the prisoner. See 3 Wilson's Law Lectures, p. 177 ; 2 do. 387. And tha propriety of this principle cannot be more fully illustrated than by direct! ing our attention to the various reported cases where there have been convictions on circumstantial evidence, where subsequent events showed the entire innocence of the individual charged with the offence. Here Mr. Pabsons read from Philips* Evidence, appendix, pages 67 to 71, 82, 89, and 92, and perhaps no cases more clearly show the great impropriety of convicting on circumstantial evidence. In a case like the present, fraught with doubt and uncertainty, the remark of Lord Hale (familiar as household words) may be repeated with its full effect, " that it is better that ninety and nine guilty persons should escape than that one innocent indi- vidual should be condemned." I am conscious of the unpleasant and awful situation of this jury; and if error should arise in' your deliberations, (which God grant may not be the case,) let me entreat you to err on the side of mercy, and then the conscience could rest se- cure in all after life, and solace the soul of man in the regions above. It is highly important that you weigh well the verdict you are soon to pronounce upon this ill- fated man. And let us for a few moments cast our eyes to the future, and contem- plate events that might arise. Suppose that amid this vast mass of evidence, you should pronounce the awful and irrevocable verdict, of guilty s the sentence of the law which necessarily follows, and must be rendered by this court, is that of death. The prisoner is taken from this place to the lonely dungeon, from whence he is dai- ly brought, and there await the dreadful day of execution. Before that dread hour shall arrive, probably some months may roll by—and although heaven grant that long life may be the portion of each and all of you, yet man knoweth not the day or the hour he may be called to leave ihe scenes of earth for another existence, and if one of you should be cut off from this life amid your health and usefulness, before the awful day of the prisoner's execution should arrive, and summoned to the pres- ence ofthe Unknown God, and there learn from the book of life, out of which man is to be judged, the events of your earthly career, and it should be disclosed to your astonished view, that this man is innocent, that wcjle public excitement was aroused and unfounded prejudice reigning, you had condemned to death a man free from the guilt ot murder ; would not even heaven itself, with all its blissful pleasures be to you a scene of unutterable misery ? Do not, gentlemen, I entreat you, expose yourselves to the unhappiness that a- Waits the consciousness, that the innocent have been condemned by your decree I have no appeal to make to your feelings or your passions, although the persons to be affected by your verdict may well excite sympathy and compassion in every bo- som ; and if mercy, angel-eyed and heaven-hearted as she is, ever wept over the misfortunes of mortals on earth, it would be over this ruined and sacrificed family Ihe wife after a tew short hours' illness dies; the husband is accused of btdne- her where their accused, half condemned, but still beloved father is confined, minglin* their tears ai.d prsj ers with his, for a suiV* deliverance from the high and vengeful 155 erime with which he is charged. The little infant that £&arce drew one day's new- ishment from a mother's breast, has appeared before you in the arms of a stranger, (a witness in this cause) as if by its childish smiles to supplicate mercy for an inno- cent father. For these little ones I plead not; nor no appeal to your kindness do 1 make in their behalf. It is on ihe high and ennobling ground of the rules of law, that I place his right to an aquittal. It is to the intelligence and justness of a jury that 1 apply for a safe deliverance of this man. We call upon you to scrutinize ev- ery syllable of this testimony, as if your own existence depended upon the result^ be- fore you pronounce upon it. We pray you, who are the judges of the l*.w and tha fact, to regard the wisdom ofthe law which has been sanctioned and sus.a;ned by the experience of ages, and be satisfied beyond <-, doubt that these facts cannot be true, and the prisoner innocent. SPEECH OF FHAMCIS C. CAJ3IPBEIA, ESCgc FOR THE COMMONWEALTH. // the court please, Gentlemen of the jury;— Having given a most patient and attentive hearing to the evidence in this cause, you are fast approaching the period when it will become your solemn duty to pronounce upon the fate of the prisoner at the bar. The crime with which he stands charged is one of the deepest dye. Murder, perpetrated by means of poison, has, among all civilized nations, been considered an offence of peculiar enor- mity and ofthe most malignant character. It has been observed by an eminent law writer that, " of all species of deaths, the most detestable is that of poison;" and the reason he assigns for its being so, is this, "because it can of all others be the least prevented either by manhood or forethought." The midnight assassin who steals to the bed side of his sleeping victim, and accomplishes the bloody deed by the pistol, the dagger, or the knife, must hold an inferior place in the scale of crime, compared to him who administers the deadly potion to the object of his malice. In the one case death is instantaneous—in the other—disease, attended by the most agonizing pains, and heart-rending sufferings, as in the case before us, are the pre- cursors of dissolution. When man presents the poisoned cup to his fellow man—we shudder at the thought of his depravity and the cruelty of his heart 1 The very act evinces such cool deliberation, such a settled purpose and diabolical disposition—thst we are induced to believe it were impossible to conceive of any offence of a still deeper hue. But, when we behold the husband, and that too upon an occasion when, if ever, the sympathies of our nature are called into lively exercise—when the heart of the savage is softened and indicates some degree of feeling—mingling the deadly poison with the food prepared for his unsuspecting wife, prostrate on her bed of confinement, with her new born babe slumbering by her side; we are lost in the contemplation of a scene, exhibiting a heart so regardless of all social duty and aban- doned to the most enormous crimes.1 But, gentlemen, it is not sriy desire, as counsel for the commonwealth, to arouse your feelings upon this interesting occasion ; and why the counsel for the prisoner should have so repeatedly referred to an existing prejudice, and public feeling against the defendant, I am at a loss to conceive. Excitement has not been unusual on similar occasions, and may proceed from the most laudable and praiseworthy mo- tives—an honest disposition in the citizens at large to see that the criminal jurispru- dence of the country is not disregarded by suffering offenders to go unpunished. Weire not to presume that the crowds that have been in daily attendance during the progress of this trial have been actuated by ;v.,y base or inhuman feelings to- wards the prisoner at the bar ; but rather, that ihey have teen prompted by a spir- it of curiosity, so natural to us all, accompanied by a desire to see the majesty of the laws vindicated, and their violators brought to condign punishment. 1 charge you. to divest yourselves of all prejudice, if any such has infused itself into your minds. We neither ask nor expect a coiuiction at your hands unless founded on the clear- est principles of law, and the testimony in the cause. A verdict, in any case, indu- ced by a vindictive feeling, or prompted by public clamor, would be contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and have a direct tendency to subvert those rights and lib- erties so extensively enjoyed, and highly prized by us as citizens of the United States. When the time arrives that such motives actuate the minds of jurors, we Siay indeed tremble for the safety of our republic. Bot, while the trial by jury s«- 15G mains pure and undefiled, we may trust our moat precious rights to that box, as the ark of our safety. It has been asserted that the prisoner has not had a fair opportunity of bringing his defence before you. That he has been in confinement, and had no friend to render him assistance. You have heard, that, owing to the alleged ab- sence of some of his material witnesses at Dec. term, the cause was continued un- til the present court. The same means were in his power that all other prisoners enjoy. Whenever required, the process of the court has been promptly granted him. We have heard of nothing being withheld, that was requisite to enable him to establish his defence. He has had the services of counsel of learning, experier.ce and ingenuity, who have displayed unwearied zeal, and great ability, during the progress and throughout the whole of this tedious and important cause, leaving nothing unattempted that their ingenuity could suggest or their eloquence enforce. The court, acting in the discharge of-their duty to the commonwealth on the one hand, and the prisoner on the other, and ever remembering the humane injunction "to administer judgment in mercy," resolved every piece of testimony offered, ei- ther by the commonwealth or the prisoner, of a doubtful character, in favor of the prisoner, thereby affording him every advantage, consistent v/iih the faithful admin- istration of justice. There was a limit at which it became the duty ofthe Court to stop; for by the admission of illegal testimony, the rights of the commonwealth would have been brought into jeopardy. Hearsay testimony, with the well known exceptions, recognised by the law, is never admitted in judicial investigations, and would be pro- ductive of the greatest evils. No man's life, liberty, reputation or property would be secure if all testimony was not delivered under the sanction of a judicial oath. But it has been urged that the evidence adduced on the part of the common- wealth is merely presumptive, or circumstantial, and, therefore, dangerous to be relied on. In support of this position, the counsel for the prisoner have referred to a variety of cases to be found in the books on criminal law, and have artfully appli- ed them to your passions. If the nature of this kind of evidence is not rightly un- derstood, and juries are induced to disregard it, great injustice will be done the public ; and the authority of the law be set at naught. Why are you permitted to hear such evidence, if, the moment you have heard it, you are to cast it aside as de- serving of no consideration ? When a case is brought before you which depends not upon positivep<°oof, but upon a variety of circumstances, tending to prove a cer- tain fact, as honest and intelligent men, regarding the solemn oaths you have taken, you are bound to consider it, deliberately and maturely, to give it all the weight it deserves, and if it carries with it conviction to your minds, it is your duty to act up- on it, fearless of the consequences—useless, otherwise, would be those reasoning faculties, and that capacity to judge which your Creator has given you. The incen- diary, who, in the silent hour of the night, applies the torch to your dwelling, or the prowling thief, or murderer, calls upon no witnesses to behold his guilt! iVnot by presumptive evidence, how are you to trace out their villanies and crimes and bring them to punishment? They must ail pass with impunity, and a jury, under the continual dread of doing wrong, are never to do right. In more than half the crimes that are committed, no positive proof could possibly be produced. How are you to discover the assassin, unless by resorlir.g to the means used and the motives which induced him to commit the direful deed. Former grudges, threatening ex- pressions, barbarous treatment—the purchase of poison, or other instruments of death, without being able to account fir them, in a satisfactory manner, and a variety of circumstances, unusual and extraordinary in the conduct of men, and which can only be calculated for mischief, must, when the case is presented for public investi- gation, become the subject of close examination, and upon their conclusiveness, or otherwise, the party charged must be pronounced guilty or innocent. We do not differ from the counsel of the prisoner, in regard to the rules and principles laid down in the books, applicable to circumstantial testimony. These are too well known to all lawyers-have been so long recognized and acted upon, as to admit of no question. Among ihose referred to by them, is the following as laid down m 1 Starkie, Ev. 505, Sect. 76. "It is essential that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. Evidence is always indefinite and inconclusive when it raises no more than a definite probability in favor of the fact as compared vvitli some definite probability against it, whether the precise propo- sit.on can or cannot be ascertained. It is, on the other hand, ofa conclusive nature and tendency when the probability in favor of the hypothesis exceeds all limits of an arithmetical or moral nature." The learned writer and compiler of this standard work, m this passage, gives us a summary of the law on this point. We wish you 157 in your deliberations to be guided and governed by it, arc! in so doing, also bear H your minds the humane maxim of the law, quoted by the same writer, in the coursa of his observations, "that it is better that ninety-nine offenders should escape than that one innocent man should be condemned." 1 repeat, lhat the commonwealth does not ask at your hands the conviction of the prisoner unless we have established his guilt according to those settled principles of law, and by a chain of circumstan- ces, excluding all probability of any other being the criminal agent, to the satisfac- tion of your minds and consciences, " beyond all reasonable doubt." To this last principle read from Phiiips's Ev. 58, and 1 Starkie, Ev. 514, we do most cordially accede. It is this that places circumstantial evidence in the same rank with positive. You have also been told that this kind of evidence ought to be received with great caution, and books have been read to shew this, and cases of innocent men who were condemned upon such testimony and executed. We agree with the gentle- men that it ought to be received with great caution; and where the circumstances are few, that cau'ion ought to be, if possible, the greater. But, after ^11, it is but camion in the reception, Hi at is enjoined, and not a disregard or rejection of such evidence, for the same wri'.er, in ttie same volume, page 78-9, observes, "It is es- se niial to the well bein;r, at least, if not to the very exia'tence' of civil society, that it should be understood, that the secrecy with which crimes are committed, will not insure impunity lo the offender. Circumstantial evidence is allowed lo prevail lo the conviction of an offender, not because it is necessary and politic that it should be resorted to, but because it is in its own nature capable of producing the highest degree "of moral certainty in its application. Fortunately for the interests of society, crimes, especially those of great enormity and violence, can rarely be committed without affording vestiges by which the offender may be traced and ascertained. The very measures which he adopts for his security Pot unfrequently turn out to be the most cogent arguments of guilt." I shall refer you, gentlemen, to but one more passage to be found in a work of high reputation on criminal law. 1 Chitty, 458-9. "From the obscurity with which some kinds of crime are frequently covered, the jury must often be compelled to receive evidence which is merely circumstantial :;nd presump- tive. It would be to little purpose to detiil the curious distinctions which some ot the older writers have laken, and the multifarious instances with which they have en- deavored to esplain them. It seems, however, to be a good general rule that no one ought to be convicted, before a felony is known to have been actually" commit- ted ; so that no one should be found guilty of murder before the death oT the party is actually ascertained ; nor of stealing goods, unles? the owner is known, merely because lie cannot give an account in what way they came into his possession. But the circumstance, that individuals have occasionally suffered on presumptive evi- dence, whose innocence has been afterwards ascertained, ought not to prevent juries from attending with caution and deliberation, to this species of evidence ; for the evil is comparatively small to that general impunity, which the worst offendeis might obtain, if this kind of proof were never to be regarded." From these au- thorities you will readily perceive that we do not conflict in our views as to ihe na- ture of, and manner of receiving and acting on, this kind of evidence. We are all seeking after the truth, and to obtain it, upon this occasion, must avail ourselves of the means which the law places in our power. By a conscientious and faithful use of these, you cannot but arrive at a correct decision of this case. In summing up the testimony, I shall endeavor to bring it before you in as clear and comprehensive a manner as possible, with a view to precision and arrangement. This, from its being so voluminous, is no easy task, r.nd yet my duly requires that I should adopt the method most likely to accomplish this object. The one which presents itself to my mind as best calculated to embrace all the testimony, and at the same time afford me an opportunity of replying to the arguments ofthe counsel for the prisoner, pretty much in the order in which they were made, is the follow- ing: I. Did the deceased come to her death by means of poison ? II. Did she commit suicide ? III. If not, did the prisoner perpetrate the act ? 1 think I may say, without fear of contradiction, after the full, clear and scientific details given by the several physicians and chemists examined on this occasion, that your minds must be free from all doubt, that the deceased came to her death by poison, and that that poison was white arsenic. Indeed, the counsel for the prisoner appear to be so fully satisfied of ihe fact, that they have dwelt but little on that part of the case. True, they speak of the uncertainty of probabilities in themselves, and 158 that an indefinite number ^of these cannot, in the nature of things, produce certain- ly. But this argument, as you will readily perceive, is not founded in reason and good sense. One circumstance, for instance, may not, and ought not, to induce a jury to convict; yet a number of circumstances connected and well support- ed, will, and should lead to a conviction. So in the science of chemistry, and the tests used to ascertain the presence of arsenic, you have heard that no one test, or perhaps any two, are deemed conclusive by writers on medical jurisprudence ; ye<., when all the most approved tests are resorted to and concur in producing the same result, by a variety of experiments, it is acknowledged by all writers, who are deemed good authority, that absolute certainty has been attained. But the learned counsel have attacked the science of chemistry itself, and have held it up to your view as undeserving of any confidence—as altogether a chimera. They have com- pared it to soap bubbles, "blown by one chemist to-day, and exploded by another to- morrow ;" a vain speculationmpon the credulity ofthe world,! I would ask, are the gentlemen serious when they address you in this style ? No", gentlemen, as men of science themselvts, they know full well that chemistry occupies a conspicuous place among its sister sciences ; and men who have devoted their lives and talents to the pursuit of it, have secured for themselves an undying fame, as public benefactors. By its laws and analyses, the principles of all bodies are ascertained. By it the va- rious properties of our food, the nature ofthe medicines used to restore health, and an infinite variety of matters closely connected with our comfort and well being, are understood and regulated. This science, like all others, is progressive, and capable of still higher degrees of improvement; and important discoveries are made from time to time, that go to elucidate and advance those made at an earlier day. I shall, however, proceed as briefly as possible, to bring to your view the testimo- ny bearing upon this point, and in doing so. shall endeavor to omit, as far as practi- cable the scientific terms used by the medical gentlemen who have been examined. Indeed those gentlemen, at the intimation of the Court, explained most ofthe terms used by them in the course of their testimony, and, I presume, you felt no difficulty in comprehending lliem. As an accurate examination of the body of the deceased was of the greatest impor- tance, the Coroner ofthe county selected distinguished men in their profession to attend at the place of disinterment, with the jury, to examine the external appear- of the corpse, to open the body and make "the anatomical examination. Drs. id. The nails on the fingers were of a black color. They next opened and ex- amined the heart. This fountain of life exhibited peculiar evidence of violent ac- tion. There had been more blood sent to it than is usual and of a darker color. The left auricle and ventricle presented an appearance scarcely ever seen, being half filled with ihe same colored blood. The stomach next became the subject of examination. And here the indications of the existence of poison made their ap- pearance by a strong inclination in the coats to separate from each other, a dark colored fluid, and intense inflammation, approaching lo dark mahogany color. The small intestines throughout their whole extent were likewise in a state of inflamma- tion. Discovering no other cause of death than that occasioned by the diseased state of the stomach, they removed it and a portion of the connected intestines, with their contents, for the purpose of experimenting. The first experiment was made at Muncy, with a portion of the liquid taken from the stomach, which was suspected lo contain, from its appearance, a large portion of arsenic. Two of the usual tests were applied, one of which threw do.™ a precipitate ofa straw-colored appearance. The other produced a green subsiance, called Scheele's gre-n both indicating the presence of arsenic. The 7 next took white arsenic of the shop* and applied the proper tests, and the result was the production of a solution s'milar to that obtained trom the stomach. From these experiments they tell you that the conclusion they arrived at was that of arsemc being present in the stomach ; altho' they do not wish it to be understood, by any means, that these tests alone i»r-» con- elusive. They are not relied upon by us as such, notwithstanding some writers would appear to favor such a conclusion. We have further evidence on this part of the cause, and still more satisfactory in its nature. I allude to the exDeriment mad,- by Dr. Douga and Mr. Morrison, at Milton. 1 hese were carried further than those* at Muncy, and the glass tubes exhibited shew the crust or arsenic allayed to thern Ihey also tried the experiment on the arsenic of the shop, in the mode described 159 to you, and produced a glass, shewing the result to be similar. But, gentTefnen, We do not stop even here. In order to place this matter beyond all possibility of doufct, the stomach, with the contents, were put into glass bottles, carefully sealed, given into the care of Mr. Kittoe and by him taken to Philadelphia to be submitted to a course of the most searching analyses. This young gentleman, himself a great pro- ficient in the science of chemistry, and whose'testimony has been delivered with so much honor to himself, engaged the services of Dr. Mitchell of that city—one ofthe most eminent chemists and physicians of the present day. The chemical agents were all prepared by Dr. Mitchell in the presence of the witness, and with the ut- most care. The experiments were continued from day to day, with the assistance of Mr. Kittoe—several physicians and chemists ofthe city being in attendance during the progress. The various results of these have been given by Mr. Kittoe in detail, and in ihe most satisfactory manner, accompanied by the production of the glass tubes, or vials, containing the matter referred to, and hermetically sealed. These you have examined, and my colleague having gone so fully into this part of the case it would be an unnecessary consumption of time to repeat the testimony of Mr. Kit- toe; I shall merely observe that a fine arsenical ring was produced ; the peculiar odor discovered; the Scheele's green formed, by several modes ; the canary yellow; a white flocculent precipitate; and in the last place a metallic arsenic ring. Here then we have the highest degree of proof, by the production of the metal itself, and the process by which it was obtained at every stage, exhibiting the peculiar properties and characteristics of this poison. Mr. Kittoe accordingly was asked whether he considered the experiments sufficient, and he unhesitatingly replied that he did. And be now tells you that the tests, taken in conjunction, and precipitates thrown down, indicate the presence of arsenic indubitably. In addition to this tes- timony, we have that derived from the symptoms in the case of the deceased, compa- feci with those given by the medical gentlemen, from the most approved writers on the subject of arsenic. These are in general, nausea, vomiting, a sense of burning vheatin the stomach and gullet, pain in the stomach, retching or effort to vomit, and pain all over the system, attended by great thirst. Where the quantity taken is large, death ensues in the course ofa few hours; or may be instantaneous, if exces- sive. In the case before you the quantity which must have been received into the stomach of the deceased is supposed to have been five or six drachms—a dose suffi- cient to occasion death in a few hours, and you find she did expire with the word "drink," upon her tongue, in about nine'hours from the time she ate her supper.— But the gentlemen tell us that other substances will produce rings similar to the arsenical ring, and in corroboration of their assertion exhibit two rings, made during the trial, by Mr. Kittoe, from cinnabar. But that gentleman tells you, that there is a diffeience between the cinnabar and the arsenical ring inform and color ; and what is conclusive, that the same tests being applied, the prec.pitates would not be the same in any one case. Dr. Hepburn states that the sulphuretted hydrogen, with any preparation of mercury, as for instance, salts of mercury, will throw down a dark pre- cipitate instead ofa yellow, and that lime-water would also be a test between mercury and arsenic ; that if it were corrosive sublimate, the lime water would throw down a yellow precipitate. From all this evidence in conjunction, it is impossible for any rational mind to entertain a doubt of the acrid matter found in the siomach ofthe de- ceased being white arsenic; that this occasioned her death is equally clear- The gentlemen who made the post mortem examination, have, without hesitation, given it as their opinion that it was the arsenic that terminated her existence. This conclu- sion is entitled to the greatest weight, being drawn from the best sources of infor- mation, by the aid of professional learning and experience, and delivered under the solemnity of an oath, in a case where the life of a fellow being depends in a great measure, on their testimony. It is laid down in M'JVully's Ev. 329, "lhat in gener- al, it may be taken that where the testimonies of professional men, of known skill and just estimation are affirmative, they may be safely Credited; but, when negative, their evidence does not amount to a disproof of a charge, otherwise es- fablished by various and independent circumstances." In the case under consider- ation we have detailed the various and peculiar circumstances here referred to, which of themselves, would be sufficient to establish the fact of death by poison, and, in addition to all Ihese, the affirmative testimony of three medical gentlemen^ of acknowledged skill and experience; which places tke truth of the position beyond ail doubt. Having thus disposed of the first diririon of my argument, I proceed to the sec- ond. Did Catharine Eui'ls commit suicide? 160 This i3 an important part of the case. The counsel for the prisoner assert that she did, and have relied principally upon this allegation in their defence, contending that the evidence in the cause goes further to establish that fact, than the guilt 01 the prisoner. In considering it I shall take a fair and a full view of the testimony relied on by them to sustain their position, and see how it can, by any possibility, avail them. In the first place it is alleged that she had a motive for the commission of the act. And what was this powerful motive, that could induce this unfortunate woman, to seek her own life at a period of time so peculiarly interesting to the female sex, and by a death, the most painful and awful, bring herself to an ignominious grave ? In the language of the gentlemen we have the answer. Tbat she never had been married to the prisoner, but had lived with him as a *' prostitute," and had "brought forth another infant to add lo her disgrace," and that moreover she was a "degraded drunkard." And they would have you believe that her remorse of conscience was so excessive at the contemplation of these offences, that nothing short of self des- truction could atone for them. These are the motives assigned. But where do we find the evidence to sustain the position taken ? You may search in vain for the smallest particle applicable to the first, and very little can be found bearing upon the second. The gentlemen were permitted by the Court to give evidence of the fact that the prisoner had a lawful wife in full life at the period of time v/hen he and the deceased commenced living together, and that they never had been married. But you saw the attempt at such proof was altogether a failure. They could prove no such thing. True, they offered to make out something like a report, by hearsay evidence, but, were most properly stopped by the Court, who could nol sit to hear such a misapplication ofthe rules of evidence. And yet the cause has been ar- gued as if the fact had been established. No doubt, gentlemen, you were astonish- ed at the course taken. To thus attack the reputation of the murdered woman, in tbe absence of all testimony, was taking a liberty I did not anticipate, and was con- trary to that spirit of charity which is an inducement to cast a mantle over the ad- mitted errors ofthe dead. The great zeal of the counsel must be received as the only apology that can be made for this violation of the truth. As to the charge of her being a degraded drunkard, you have beard all the evidence they could adduce on that subject, and it is principally made up of idle rumors which when traced amount to very little. But, 1 do aver, that the weight of evidence that can be relied on goes to repel the allegation of her being an habitual drunkard, as they would have you believe, and is in favor of her general sobriety. Therefore, if such a thing had ever been heard of as a confirmed drunkard resorting to poison to put a period to his life, because he 'could not leave off drink, which is the argument here, yet there is no evidence to show that such was her condition. But, the position is too pre- posterous to be entitled to any further consideration. Much reliance has been placed on the declarations of the deceased in regard to her net living long, and tbe counsel would have you believe that these evince a settled purpose of her mind to destroy herself. I shall examine the expressions used by her carefully. When asked by Mr. Welshanse when she was coming to Milton, she replied, that she never expected to see Milton again, or to live to see it. This was a short time before her death. She appeared cheerful, and laughed smd talked as usual. So that it appears there was nothing very serious intended at this time, and the expressions used were mere words of course, or uttered without much re- flection. But.it is said that she replied to her daughter Mi-ry Ann, on another oc- casion, when asked by her, why she did not want certain calieo, then given to the witness, "that she would not live long enough to make it up." This was about a month before her death. And that to another person she said she did not expect to live much longer, than till after her confinement." On being asked why she thought so, she replied, that she "did not know." Now, gentlemen, allow these expressions their utmost force, and what do they amount to ? Here was a woman ap- proaching the hour of her confinement, which, no doubt, she anticipated with fear- ful apprehensions, from her former experience—increased, perhaps, by the recent violent treatment she had received at the hands of her husband. The sentence pro- nounced by the Judge of all ihe earth upon the mother of our race, remains unre- voked to the present hour; and the testimony ofthe physicians examined, establishes the fact that women, generally, in the situation ofthe deceased, are given to des- pondency, and apprehend an unfavorable issue to their confinement. There is noth- ing, therefore, remarkable in the language ofthe deceased/ when we take her situ- ation into view. 161 But it is said she made use of expressions evincing an iatentian to destroy her own life. That she said in the presence of M'Coy, " she wished to Almighty God she had something to put her out ofthe way, for she was troubled in this world." The witness was in her company but a few minutes, and had but little conversation with ber. That she had trouble, gentlemen, the history of this cause abundantly shows ; and those expressions, rash and improper as they were, no doubt were uttered un- der excited feelings, at the cruelties she experienced from the prisoner. As to the relation given by Diantha Marinus of what passed between her and the de- ceased, no regard ought to be paid to it whatever. In the first place she is the niece of the prisoner, and, therefore, may be under a strong bias to testify in bis fa- vor—but a conclusive reason and one which must prevail in law, is, that we have proved by a number of witnesses that her general character for speaking the truth is so bad that she is unworthy of belief. The story of Sabina and Henrietta Moritz, is of the same stamp. Indeed, so well satisfied were the prisoner's counsel of the falsehood of it, that they did not even bring it to your view, or found an argument upon it. It was so altogether improbable that the deceased would have made known her intentions, if she had any such, of poisoning herself, to these girls, with whom she held no intercourse, and who are the sisters of that abandoned wretch, who was the cause of all her domestic troubles, that no one could believe a word they said ; but, whenyeu heard us calling up witness after witness to prove their gener- al reputation so bad, that a court of justice has seldom exhibited a scene so degra- ding to a witness, and not a person could be found among the crowd in attendance to speak a word in their favor, did you not at once, as it became your duty to do, dismiss from your thoughts all that these witnesses had said. As a further reason to induce you to believe that she destroyed herself, they have proved that after her death, a paper rolled up, with a string tied round it, was found in a trunk containing the infant's clothes, which stood in the adjoining room to that in which the deceased was confined. It has not been shewn what it did contain, if it contained any thing, but that on the outside there was something of the appear- ance of buckwheat flour. Now, in the first place, it is not shewn that this paper con- tained white arsenic, or, secondly, that she had any access to it, or the means, or op- portunity of taking it. She died on Friday morning and this discovery was made on Saturday. On Wednesday, about three or four o'clock in the afternoon, she was confined, and was up but pnce and that was on Thursday afternoon, a few minutes, while her bed was made. The trunk appears, at all times, to have been kept in the other room and out of her reach ; so that from all these circumstances, it fol- lows as a natural conclusion, that she did not make any use of the contents of the pa- per whatever they were. Nothing was found concealed about her bed, or in any other way, in which she could have had any liquid, or other matter, in which to take the poison; for, surely, it could not be imagined that she could take it in its dry state, unmingled with any other article. The prisoner had no idea of this, but sug- gested that she must have taken it in the ruin purchased for her two weeks before. But, gentlemen, has it not struck you as very remarkable, that this paper, with its contents, has not oeen produced? In whose custody was it? It was in the house ofthe prisoner. Discovered the day following that on which his wife died in a vio? lent and alarming manner ; so much so as to excite immediate suspicion that she came to her end by some improper means. But, I ask you, gentlemen, when was that paper deposited in the trunk ? We have proved by Mrs. Callahan that she ex- amined all the contents of the trunk on the day Mrs. Earls was confined, and dressed the new born babe, and that there was then no such paper in it as the one described; lhat the only papers, were a loose one spread on the botlom of the trunk, and anoth- er with some pins. 1 leave you to draw your own inference as lo who placed it there, and what the motive was. This, no doubt, was intended to serve as a link with the testimony of Mrs. Marinus, and Sabina and Henrietta Moritz, to fix the act upon the deceased. To call upon you to say that this paper contained arsenic, and that after taking a portion of it, she had deliberately done it up and replaced it in the trunk, is, in the absence of all testimony on the subject, asking too much at your hands. Again, if it had not been in the trunk before, but was concealed about her bed, why, I ask you, would she take so much pains as to leave her bed and deposite tbe paper in Ihe trunk ? What reason could be assigned for such extraordinary con- duct ? I have listened in vain to di'scover any in the arguments of counsel. It would have been more convenient for her to have cast the residue of the fatal drug into the fire, than to have taken the course alleged. Yes, gentlemen, this very cir- cumo'tuiCv, kepi back by the prisoner till the very close of his defence, carries con- ite •vi«tion to my mind that the hots stated by M'Coy, the Moritx's and Mrs; fcarkarj were prepared, connected and arranged, as was supposed, by the prisoner and bis friends, »o as to prevent a discovery of his crime. But that Being who brings to light "the hidden things of darkness," and who can at His pleasure baffle the wick- ed designs of men, has, in this case, exposed the plan laid to screen the murdere* from the penalty that awaits him. If determined on self destruction, why defer it till after she had passed through the perils of child-birth ? The gentlemen reply, because she had no disposition to take the life of her offspring. But if \he was so regardless of her duty to God, and re- solved to rush uncalled into His presence, with all her sins upon her head,'would she have bestowed one thought upon the consequences? With her the sacrifice of her unborn babe would have been, if any, a minor consideration. The argument in support of this position is more consistent with reason, and all experience, than that advanced by the prisoner. A person determined on committing suicide discovers more anxiety as to the means and the opportunity, than the time. Why should this intention have been deferred till a period, when, from the attendant circumstances on women in her situation, there would be less probability ofa favorable opportuni- ty presenting itself to accomplish her design. Besides, here was an additional induce- ment to live. A helpless infant just brought into life, claiming a mother's love and attention. Hard, indeed, must have been that mother's heart, and brutalized must have been her senses, to have so disregarded the voice of nature, and sink herself below the condition of the " beasts that perish I" We will now take a view of her conduct during the short period of her confine- m and it is not until nine o'clock, that she is seized with vomiting I bring the^e facts to your view because it has been argued in a serious and omphalic manner, that so large a quantity of arsenic could not have been t-iken in a pint of'chocolute, without being discovered, and that, therefore, she must have aken it at different times^ But at what times, and in what manner, she could have taken it, the counsel for the prisoner do not undertake to suggest. The evidence is altogether silent on the subject, and that which we have in the cause, all Leito repel the idea of her taking poison previous to the time alleged by the common- wealth. I would also observe what opportunity had she of miLg the arseniT wiU» her fo«d ? Her daughter Mary, Miss Sechler and the prisoner were all with her a different periods, While eating her supper, and it dont appear thai she was ever lef entirely alone. But what was her conduct aftershe wfa taken sick ? Does sh* no by her decorations aad actions manifest entire iguoranee of the eauss > On bumg 161 Mked what eouJd oocasion it, she replied ** she did not know—that may-be tbe ohaco- lste was too strong." Yes, gentlemen, in these expressions we have the evidence of the dying woman, that this chocolate contained the cause of her sickness and death. Can it be believed for one moment that she would thus have declared a falsehood, and prevaricated, with death in view I No ! her conduct is perfectly con- sistent, throughout, with that ofa person ignorant of the cause of her illness. We find her anxious to have the mustard plaster prepared and applied. To take the mint tea to settle her stomach—and, as a last resort, directing the prisoner to give her fifty drops of laudanum. Finding no relief from all these usual remedies—but her agonies increasing every moment, we hear her uttering these words of dispair, " it has gone so far that I can get no relief/" Is this the language of a self murderer ? And this the conduct of a person determined on self destruction ? It is in direct op- position to all experience and a contradiction in itself. It appears from her language that it was relief she desired and not death. Had it been death, she would have ob- stinately refused all remedies calculated to counteract her object, and would have patiently awaited the moment that was to terminate her existence. She would have hailed it as a welcome, instead of anticipating it as an unwelcome period. It is said she was opposed to any person being sent for. And what does this amount to? It merely shews that for sometime after she was taken ill, she apprehended nothing serious—was not aware of her danger, and, therefore, wished to give no unnecessary trouble. I defy the ingenuity of any man, taking all the circumstances into view, to torture this evidence so as to admit of any construction favorable lo the views of the prisoner. But, gentlemen, I shall close this branch of my argument, by the prisoner's own declarations. I allude to what passed in the jail between him and ids daughter Susan. On being asked by her whether he thought her mother had poisoned her- self, he replied, "no;" and on being interrogated further as to who he thought did it, he said, " it was my mother that old bitch that done it." Here then, in the silence of the prison—-with his daughters by his side and having full time to deliberate, we hear him repelling the charge now made against his injured and mur- dered wife. In the very face of this acknowledgment, his counsel have attempted lo rest his defence on the fact of her having poisoned herself! But, you must have observed, that in doing so, they have studiously kept out of view this important testimony. They say, in speaking of the testimony of this witness, generally, that she has been tutored—but what evidence have they adduced in support ofthe allega- tion ? None. And it is unreasonable to imagine she could be tutored to give evi- dence against her father in his perilous situation. True, he told both his daughters in the prison, "not to be too hard upon him, but try and save him if they could"— and with this appeal made to them, at such a time and on such an occasion, it is con- trary to our nature, and all experience, to suppose that anything has been stated by this witness, but what a sense of the obligation she was under to speak the truth, forced from her. She was an intelligent witness, and underwent a long cross-ex- amination, without any material contradiction. And, again, if she stated a falsehood, why not call upon her sister Mary, who she says was with her at the time, and who has been examined, to contradict her. And here 1 will take the opportunity of paying a few words in reply to the remarks of the gentlemen, as regards these chil- dren being produced as witnesses against their father. The necessity of the case required it. They were competent witnessea, and the commonwealth had a right to their testimony. Painful as was the scene of a child giving evidenc* against a parent, on such an occasion—yet, the law is "no respecter of persons ;" nor can it regard the feelings of any individual. Besides, they, with their little brother, were witne6ses/er as well as against the prisoner. The son's testimony has been strongly and exclusively, relied upon to show how the prisoner disposed ofthe arsenic traced into his possession ; which was a most material part of his defence. * The counsel for ihe prisoner have asserted, with great apparent confidence, that the circumstances detailed in evidence, are more conclusive of the allegation that- the deceased committed suicide—than that he is guilty of the crime charged • that, a doubt, at least, having been raised as to the criminal agent, you ought lo ncquil. This has been urged with great zeal and ingenuity, accompanied by more than ordi- nary appeals to your feelings. As this was the strong ground ot defence, it was to be expected that an unusual effort would be made to maintain it. But, have they succeeded ? Can it be possible that they have raised a reasonable doubt in the min of any one of you ? If they have, acquit the prisoner, But, 1 am at a loss to pe»- eeive, on taking the whole of the testimony into view, how any man of tbe loa 164 discernment, can entertain a doubt. There appears to have been neither motive* inclination, means nor opportunity, for her to commit the act. In the absence of ihese, it would be an absolute absurdity to say she did. As well might we look fot an effect without a cause. As rational beings we are operated upon by motives—■ and acts, of any kind, are rarely performed without some object to be attained or answered. Having, as briefly as the nature ofthe testimony would enable me, disposed of the second division of my argument, I shall proceed to the consideration o( the third, to wit: did the prisoner perpetrate the act ? That he is guilty ofthe foul and delibe- rate murder with which he stands charged, must be manifest to your minds from the testimony disclosed in your hearing, and which has received your undivided atten- tion for so many days. In his case we have a powerful motive—a strong inclination— ample means and a full opportunity. I shall discuss these in order. That he was under the influence of the most powerful motive that can operate upon the humari mind and passions, there is abundant evidence. His affections and inclinations had been withdrawn from the wife of his bosom and were centred in another. With this prostitute he lived in a state of adultery, for many months pre- vious to the death of his wife. You will not ask me for the evidence of this fact. I point you to the disgraceful scene, Upon two occasions, at Mull's, as disclosed by Garnhart. I Will not trespass on your time by recapitulating the evidence, which is fresh in your recollection, *n this part of the Case. But, we are told that this wit- ness is contradicted by Mrs. Mull and her husband, and therefore, no credit ought to be given to his testimony. They say, moreover, that he appears in the odious character of an eavesdropper, and therefore ought to be suspected of every thing mean and disgraceful- You heard the young man's testimony, and could judge of his credibility and fairness. There is nothing in the circumstance of his being there SO remarkable as to render it at all improbable ; nor was it unlikely that his curiosity would be excited lo ascertain what was going on. But Mrs. Mull is certainly liable to more suspicion as regards the truth than Garnhart, for she is the sister ofthe party implicated, and would be likely to conceal as far as possible, her disgrace. As to William Mull, independent ofthe manner in which he gave his testimony—whicbj of itself, was sufficient to destroy his credibility ; we proved by a number of wit- nesses, that his reputation for truth was so bad that he was unworthy of credit. So that there can be no reason for rejecting Garnhart's evidence. Again, I draw your attention to what took place at Moritz's, as related by Shuman. His testimony is clear and positive, and, if believed, establishes the fact of a criminal connection between the prisoner and Maria Moritz. And 1 ask you why it should not be be- lieved ? The reply given is, because it is expressly contradicted by Sibina and Henrietta Moritz, the sisters of the party criminated. Without entering into an examination of their testimony, and pointing out its contradictions and improbabili- ties, 1 shall merely remark, that these witnesses are entitled to no credit, in conse- quence of their reputation for truth being so bad, as already observed in a former part of my argument. I, therefore, consider the testimony of Shuman as unim- peached. At another time Mr. Donley informs you that he discovered the prisoner and the same female, in company, ii the woods, near the big road, and under suspi- cious circumstances. The testimony of this witness has not been attacked. In ad- dition to these, we have the repeated declarations of the prisoner that he " loved her," that he "would go to her when he pleased," and that "a man would almost risk his life for a pretty girl;" of the truth of which last declaration we have the melan- choly instance before us. Accordingly we find him using familiarities with her, even in the presence of others; evincing a strong attachment, and upon all occasions manifesting an unequivocal partiality for her. The consequences naturally to be expected from this course of conduct on the part of the prisoner, were remonstrance and reproof, in the first instance, and una- vailing bursts of passion and feeling, at different times, on the part of the deceased; who, from the evidence, ppears lo have been a woman of high spirit and not at all calculated to bear with the treatment she received. This was the unhappy cause of the quarrels and dissensions of which we have had so much evidence. Until this unfortunate attachment took place, we hear of no difficulties between them. At Milton there appears to have been nothing ofthe kind. Several, who were their near neighbors in that place, have been examined as witnesses, but nothing of that nature has been disclosed. Having now set at nought his marriage obligations, and entered on a course of crime, we find him going on step by step, until his heart be- comes hardened and his conscience seared* 16* We have it in evidene* that at different times and upon various occasions hi threatened to " lay her asleep." To one witness he said that " he would be d----d if he would be bothered with her much longer, that he would get rid of her s.>m«- how or other." At another time he said "she ought to have her throat cut." Those expressions, unaccompanied by any acts of violence to her person, shew a wicked and depraved disposition, Capable of desperate deeds. But when we go further and shew acts of cruelty and barbarity seldom heard of in a christian land, we are prepared for all that followed. Behold the scene at Mangus' pump—in the dead of winter, with snow and ica upon the ground, when In the presence of several, he seized his victim, bent her over the trough, tore her dress, and wet her from head to foot; and was only prevented from committing further outrage, by the timely interference of a person who ran to her assistance. You next find her concealed in the bar of Mr. Mangus and in tears, while ihe prisoner is prowling in quest of her. The family give her dry clothes and she receives their protection. I shall not repeat all that took place at that time, as the facts have been so often referred to already. But, it is said the testimony is conflicting. That on letting go the bridle of his horse, she sat down by the trough and he merely splashed the waier over her. How ridiculous! An 1, I may add, how false ! Who proves this ? The same Mrs. Marinus, whose character for truth I have already observed upon ; and she is con- tradicted by the others who have testified on this point. See him at another time seize her when seated at the breakfast table, thrust her into the kitchen, and then pull her back into the room by the hair of her head. We have evidence of his twice dragging her to the cellar, where she was compelled to remain once under peril of her life, and at another time under lock and key. In this humiliating situation she v/as visited by Miss Sechler who found her in tears, with her clothes much torn. The second of these outrages was committed not more than one month previous to her confinement. But, gentlemen, not satisfied with these acts of cruelty, we have proved that he repeatedly beat her, and on one occasion doubled the horse lines, and whipped her severely. This was not more than two or three months before her death. Other acts of a similar character have been detailed in the course of the evidence but it is not necessary that I should refer to all of them particularly, for it is truly painful to our feelings to dwell upon conduct so disgraceful to any man. 'The prisoner has attempted to account for some of these threatenings and deeds of barbarity. But, has he succeeded in doing so? Flimsy, indeed are the reasons assigned. The true reason, or cause of all these, may be traced in general to his own bad conduct with Maria Moritz. On this subject, whenever broached by his wife, or brought into view in any manner, he was particularly sensitive ; and gave loose to his violence of temper. Here, then, we have, in addition to motive, a strong inclination, manifested by threats and acts of cruelty, to put a period to her life. Previous threats, and conduct, such as we have shown, are always, in cases of this kind, entitled to great weight, in as much as they indicate a wicked mind and mali- cious disposition. Before I proceed to treatof the means in the prisoner's power, I shall ask your attention to the time selected to carry his horrid purpose into effect. This discov- ers great forethought and deliberaiion. Had his infernal design been accomplished while she was going about in her usual health and strength, the suddenness of her death, and circumstances attending it, would have excited immediate suspicion. But the chance of detection would be much less, provided she died during her confinement. Sudden changes often take place with women in that situation, an-J, many limes death comes unexpectedly upon them. The prisoner seems to have been fully aware of this, for we find him artfully replying to Mrs. Callahan's enqui- ry after the cause of her illness—that she had taken cold. Mrs. Callahan replied that this could not be the case, for she had left her warm and doing wejl, not long previous. This, I think, is a satisfactory answer to the question put by*the prison- er's counsel, in argument—"why not do it months before." That he purchased about two drachms, or near two tea spoonfuls of arsenic during the first week in October, at Northumberland, he himself has shewn. It is also in evidence that on the 13th of the same monlh he bought the same article at the drug store of Bruner & Dawson at Muncy. This was the day preceding that on which the deceased was confined. Now the counsel admit that the having of ar- senic in his possession, if the purpose is not explained or accounted for, is entitled to great weight; and so it is laid down in the books. And how do they attempt to account for it ? We are told that on Thursday afternoon he took his two little boys and went te> the fisii basfcet, and that in their presence he put one tea apoonful of 166 tome white stuff, in a dead fisfe for the purpose of killing the minks and muskrats, that were in the habit of frequenting the basket. That the papers in which the stuff was done up, were thrown into the river; and this is the only offer we have heard to account for the use of the poison, acknowledged to have been in his pos- session. Taking it for granted that what he put in the fish was poison, what, I would ask, became of the rest of it? There were two purchases made within a few days of each other, and, but a small portion accounted for. The gentlemen tell us thai you must presume the rest was used in the same way, as that was ihe osr tensible purpose for which it was purchased. This does not follow as a matter of course; particularly when there is a strong suspicion of an improper use having been made of it, It was for ihe prisoner lo have cleared this matter up, and not having done so, the rule applies, and it ought to have due weight. There are some singular coincidences attending this matter, and difficult to reconcile with the pris- oner's innocence. It appears by the testimony of his mother, that the deceased ex- pected to have been confined about two weeks earlier than she was. About that period we find him purchasing arsenic at Northumberland, a considerable distance from his place of residence. Again, he purchased at Muncy on the day before her confinement, and on the day that she actually was poisoned, we find him in a great hurry, and just as ths family were sitting down-to dinner, going to his basket, and there depositing a small portion ofthe article in a dead fish. These acts, his coun- sel view as all consistent with his occupation as a fisherman, and not in the least degree calculated to raise suspicion against him. They are, however, links in the chain of e\idence, and laken in connection with the great variety of circumstances, before you, will leceive your deliberate consideration. Gentlemen, I shall now draw your attention to a very interesting and important part of this case. I allude to what took place immediately before, and after supper. Christiana Earls has given you a full narrative of all that took place, and of the con-! vcrsalion between her and the deceased, in the course of the afternoon and even- ing. There is nothing remarkable in all this, nor can it throw any light on the cause. She had partaken of her dinner with a good appetite, remained in excel- lent health during all the residue of the day, and had as good an appetite for her supper. Chocolate was prepared by the oid woman, of which the deceased was fond. She was in the act of getting Mrs. Earis' ready to take up to her, before the others sat down to tab e ; when the prisoner came to her and said " Katy don't want her supper till after we are done." She then dipped a pint bowl full and set it on ihe stove where it remained till after she was done eating. She then removed it lo a waiter that was placed on a table in the kitchen* There she left it, and went to a cupboard in the adjoining room to get some preserves, and other articles, to take up with it. It was at this time, we say, the poison was deposited in the bowl. The counsel for the prisoner triumphantly exclaim, " the commonwealth dont get the prisoner from the supper table till the tray is carried upstairs!" But, the gentlemen forget that Christiana Earls expressly says that "he had got through and was about." So that here was a full opportunity afforded him lo deposit the arsen- ic in the chocolate. The evidence is, lhat he was not out of ihe room and kitchen from the time he rose from the table, till he lighted his mother up stairs. The children, it appears, during this time remained at the table- That the poison was in the chocolate there cannot remain a doubl, and lhat there was no opportunity of pulting it in after it was carried up stairs, I take it, is equally clear; therefore the position we rely on, I consider as established beyond all controversy. That the prisoner was remarkably attentive while the deceased was eating her supper, and manifested a great degree of anxiety, is apparent from the testimony, and suspicion as to the reason of this is naturally excited. Here we behold him suddenly changed from the threatening cruel husband—regardless ofthe happiness or life of his Wife, to the apparently kind, dutiful and commiserating companion. But, ah! gentlemen, this was all a gross deception ! A mere cloak to his fiend-like conduct! Whilst his unsuspecting victim is partaking of the food, and drinking of the poisoned bowl, see him lying upon a bed, on the opposite side ofthe room, watching his prey, like some ferocious monster! Having left the apartment for a few moments, and gone down into the kitchen, we find him, as soon as Miss Sechler came in, and without saying a word to her, running up the stairs, and on that young woman entering the room where the deceased was confined, she found him seated, near the foot of the bed, talking to his wife, and in the language of the witness " he seemed kind to her." As soon as she had finished her meal, he took up the tray and carried it down stairs, and we don't .find him returning until her vomiting commenced, about one 167 hour afterwards. Then h« indeed mafces his appearand*. And for what purpose ? To take charge of the vessel in which the contents of her stomach are emptied, and see that it is thrown out of the window to avoid detection ; as according to the ev- idence of Dr. Hepburn, portions of the arsenic would adhere to the food she had received, and be cast up with it. But, it has been urged that he prepared several kinds of tea to relieve her. Yes, gentlemen, and how far this was calculated to answer that end remains a matter of suspicion. On tasting the mint tea, she com- plained that it was bitter and burned her heart: and, the large amount of arsenic found in the stomach, besides what must have been thrown off, strengthens the pre- sumption that the various teas administered, contained portions of it. Indeed, the counsel for the prisoner have contended, that so large a quantity could not have been drunk in a pint of chocolate, without discovering the austere taste, spoken of by Dr. Hepburn, and they, therefore, infer that she must have taken it at dift'erent times. Therefore this argument sustains, and justifies, our position. But we do not deem this of great importance in establishing the guilt of the prisoner ; al- though it goes to shew a degree of cool, persevering wickedness, without a paral- lel. But, we think it is not a strained inference, when we say that the deceased did discover this austere, or sour taste, at the time of drinking the chocolate, from the declaration made use of by her to the old woman, on being asked what could have made her sick, that " may-be the chocolate was too strong," to which the wit- ness replied that could not be, for she made "nothing too strong." Now, chocolate has been proved to possess two properties peculiarly adapted lo the use to which it was applied by the prisoner. The first is, that having a taste itself, the austere, or sour taste, of the arsenic occasioned by being mixed with warm liquid, would not be so readily discovered, as If put into hot water, or tea. The second is, that it will hold arsenic longer in suspension, or prevent it from settling, than, perhaps, any other article would do. The first, may account for the taste not being so sharp, as to lead her to reject it—as she did the different kinds of tea administered to her; and the second, for so large a quantity being contained in a pint, without collecting in a short time, in the bottom of the bowl. The gentlemen would have you sup- pose that the prisoner, instead of being an unlearned, ignorant man, must have been well acquainted with chemistry, to have known those peculiarities of choco- late, and to have made a selection of that article accordingly. But, this conclusion does not follow, by any means, from the circumstances in the case. It was a mere fortuitous matter with him. For we do say, and we think we are warranted by the evidence, that he put it in the tea as well as the chocolate, without regarding the variods properties of the respective articles. This is a sufficient answer to the suggestion of the gentlemen. How extraordinary was the conduct of the prisoner, during the whole period, from her first taking sick until the moment of her death. For six hours and a half, and whilst the deceased was experiencing the greatest agonies, we find the pris- oner loitering about the house, making no attempt to procure a physician, or even calling in a neighbor; till urged, at last, by his little daughter, he goes for Mrs. Sechler. When that respectable matron arrived, and saw the situation of his wife, she told him he had better have a doctor, for that she did not know what ailed her» Yet, did he even then, shew any disposition to procure medical attendance ? Noth- ing of the kind! It has been urged as a manifestation of his sincerity and inno- cence, that he talked about Dr. Ludwig, to Mrs. Callahan, and that he said after his wife was dead, "if he had only called in a doctor." And why did he not ? Seve- ral rqen of eminence resided within a few miles ot his house. It is all in vain to at- tempt to induce you to believe that it was owing to reluctance on the part of his wife that he did not. She had been suffering the most bitter torments for hours, and had shewn every desire to obtain relief. No, gentlemen, these professions were all made without the smallest particle of sincerity or truth. 'To have called in a doc- tor, he knew full well, would have led to an immediate discovery of the cause of her suffering; and hence it was he made no endeavor to procure one. Again, he is directed to go for Mrs. Callahan, toward whom the gentlemen have not been sparing in opprobrious epithets. He goes ; but what is his conduct^ He proceeds With the utmost deliberation, notwithstanding his wife is then at the point of death, and actually did die fifteen minutes afier the arrival of Mrs. Sechler, and before he returned with Mrs. Callahan. You find him, instead of calling up Mrs. Callahar, and hurrying her on to the scene of distress, calmly and leisurely going to the cellar with Patrick to get a bottle of whiskey! Not until this matter was disposed of, more iu.porifcuL lo him liiavi ths life of his \v;sX do we find* him informing Mrs. Callahan 168 that "she had caught cold," and was "taken very bad." Was this like the con. duct ofa man who had one spark of feeling for a human being, tortured, agonizing and expiring, as his wife was, during those moments? And yet his counsel would have you believe that he was attentive, compassionate, and did all in his power to relieve her and bring her assistance. As they approach the house, his daughter, Mary, met them and announced the death of her mother. Mrs. Callahan immediate- ly started and ran ahead of them. The prisoner betrayed no particular emotion, but followed to the house. When he came to the head of the stairs, he " bawled out," to use the language of Mrs. Sechler, and when he entered the room in which the corpse lay, " gave several terrifying stamps, and made use of blasphemous expres- sions." Was it the language of sorrow, or, as his counsel would have you suppose, a fervent ejaculation, expressive of his grief? Nothing of the kind! He did not even approach the bed to look upon the countenance of the deceased, but passed off into the adjoining room ! The next we see of him is while he stands facing the fire, and the tea is running on the floor from the upset tin cup. There he stands! at- tentively listening to what Mrs. Callahan was saying to bis daughter Mary by the side ofthe corpse. Much has been said about the prisoner being sorrowful, and shedding many tears upon various occasions, going to shew a deep state of feeling at his bereavement. But, Mrs. Sechler lms told you, that she perceived no marks of real grief, nor tears shed while she remained; and this was at a time, when, from the awful circum- stances attending her death, and the suddenness of it, we would naturally expect the hardest heart to discover some degree of emotion, and, if there were tears to shed, to drop them then. True, as the women and neighbors began to come in, we have it in evidence, that he was seen to make use of his handkerchief, and tears were ob- served. But, gentlemen, the man who could commit so heaven-daring a crime, might easily act the hypocrite with a view to conceal it! It seems, however, that the part was not so well sustained as to avoid suspicion. The eyes of many were upon him, and the mask was, at times, unguardedly laid aside. Behold him in the church yard, when the coffin was unscrewed, and his children were led up for the last time, by their kind and feeling neighbors, to take a parting view ofthe remains of their mother, before she was deposited in the silent tomb, and were dissolved in tears, upon this affecting occasion, standing unmoved, with his back to a tree, per- feclly indifferent to all that was passing ! He neither approaches the coffin ; heaves a sigh or drops a tear! We have seen the same kind of indifference exhibited at • other times, before the body was removed from the house. These are treated as minor and unimportant circumstances by his counsel, but, they are entitled to.their ■weight, in searching out the truth in Ibis case, and will receive it at your hands. If they are to Vie disregarded, why do the gentlemen picture to you in such glowing colors, his lamentations and distress of mind ? You will take all these things into view and reconcile them if you can. As to the remarks made, that the witnesses who here detailed these circumstances, were not so suspicious at the time, as they would now have you believe, were credulous, superstitious and given to ex- aggeration, we reply, that they were the neighbors of the prisoner, and well aware ofthe treatment the deceased received at his hands; they were likewise acquainted wiih her situation as to health a few hours previous to her death, and all the atten- dant circumstances ; when we take all these into view we need not be surprised that their suspicions were awakened; it would have been more extraordinary had they not been. You have seen also that these witnesses are persons of respecta- bility. The circumstances attending the funeral are also much relied on as evidence in his favor. We are told that mourning badges were provided for himself and chil- dren, and that a sermon was preached upon the occasion. '1 hat he had sent for Mr. Mangus and consulted with him as to the expediency of interring the corpse on Saturday or Sunday, intimating a preference for Sunday, as it would give time to notify her old neighbors and friends at Milton, so that they might have an opnortu- nity of attending. But, on being told by the witness, that "he could do'as he pleased," do we find him determining on Sunday as ihe time for the burial, and sending word to Milton ? No, gentlemen, on the contrary, the coffin is ordered to be ready by nine o'clock on Saturday morning. As early a period as was consistent with the necessary arrangements. But, we are told she had all the rites and de- cencies of christian sepulture. And, I ask you, would it not have been extraordi- nary if she had not ? If the usual and customary ceremonies in burying the dead bad been departed from, and she had been hurried to her grave in an unfeeling ancT 160 inhuman manner, would not a greater degree of suspicion have attached to the prisoner, than actually did ? He was fully aware of this, and, no doubt, thought that by resorting to the forms usual on such occasions, and this "mockery of woe," his heinous crime would pass unnoticed. The whole history of this case must satisfy the mind of any man, tbe least conversant with human nature, that the prisoner was capable of, and did practice, the system of deceit and hypocrisy attributed to him. The body having been deposited in the earth, no doubt the prisoner flattered himself that all evidence of his guilt was removed and that he was safe from the reach of justice. But, that Being who rules the universe, and who has command- ed "that whosoever sheddeth ma-n's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," has by many circumstances, brought this crime to light, and caused the prisoner's own acts, and conduct, to lead to his conviction. Accordingly We now find the mask entirely torn off, and the hardened murderer standing disclosed in all his deformity ! His language and behaviour after being arrested are powerful evidence against him.—- We are told that "innocence is bold as a lion," and that his conduct can all be re- conciled with a sense of innocence. We admit the correctness of this position, in general, but deny the application of it to the prisoner. The boldness displayed by him was altogether ofa different character. It was the boldness of a man hard- ened in crime! Innocence, like truth, is, at all times, consistent with itself—it is not one thing to-day and another tomorrow. We find wanting in his conduct all the characteristics of innocence and truth. When arrested upon the charge pf having murdered his wife, it would have been naturally expected, if innocent, that; he would have been horror struck at the enormity ofthe accusation brought against him, and would have immediately protested his innocence, in a firm and consistent manner. But, instead of doing so, we find him declaring to the officer and his as- sistants, that "it was no more than he expected." Why expect to be arrested if■•. innocent? His counsel would have you believe there was no ground for suspicion against him. That all things had been so contrived and conducted that no human' penetration could discover aught amiss, Ah ! gentlemen, conscience—that faithful monitor within, which makes cowards ofthe guilty !—accused him at the time, and, he unguardedly, made use ofthe language stated. We next find him prevaricating and swearing that he never had purchased arsenic, but had bought ratsbane, and had a right to do with it what he pleased. On being cautioned by one of the compa- ny not to talk in that manner, as his acknowledgments would be given in evidence, against him, he replied " they might take him to jail or to h—11—might hang him and be d----d to them." In the bar-room of Mr. Mangus we hear him make uses of this remarkable language, " I'll take a drink by G—d, and Ell have the one 1 like best, unless they do hang me, and I don't care what the h—11 the people say."— And again, while on the way to the justices' office, he said he "expected they would hang him, and he did not care a d---n, that he expected to go to h—11 any how. " Now, I ask you, is this the language and boldness of innocence ? Are any; tears shed now ? Have we any manifestations of affection or regard for the wife of/ his bosom, so lately cut off from her family of helpless children, and ushered into, "a world of untried being," and it may be, with all her infirmities on her head.— Nothing of the kind is either seen or heard. Does not the conduct of the prisoner exhibit a total absence of all feeling, and a recklessness of purpose, at variance with all his former pretensions? Yes, gentlemen, I will go further, does it not amount. to an acknowledgment of his guilt, and the inducement which led him to perpe- trate the cruel, and most deliberate, murder. An attempt to escape from justice has ever been considered a mark of guilt, for', " the wicked flee when no one pursueth." In the case before us we also have this evidence. The officer who had him in custody in the first instance proposed pro- curing a wagon to curry him. This the prisoner declined. What his reason was for doing so is not a mystery. My colleague has given you his views fully in regard : to this part of the case, and they carry with them great force. He next attempts to divide the company, and not succeeding in this scheme, several efforts are made to escape. He started and ran some distance but was overtaken. His coun-1 sel have shown you that he is athletic and fleet of foot, and we think that we are justified in inferring that this was, at least, an experiment, to ascertain if escape ..was possible. Having been foiled in this attempt, we again see him making a sudden jump or spring towards the hill side, where, it is in evidence, there was a ravine or break, by which a man might have passed up and eluded pursuit. Upon anptheF occasion he sat down and swore he would go no further, unless they got some1 way of i auling him. These, with other singular act3 of behaviour, while on the road, and W 170 which are fresh in your recollection, show a course of conduct in the prisoner, which 1 am at a loss to know how to reconcile with his innocence. Indeed, his ingenious counsel have found it a difficult task to account for it in any manner, the least plau- sible. At one time they would have you believe it was all done in sport; that ha intended nothing serious by it, and that he afterwards came on peaceably and with- out any difficulty. In reply to all this, we say, that it was a strange time for sport and levity, and that the respectable men who had charge of him did not look upon it in that light, but the reverse ; and as to coming on peaceably, they had to threat- en to tie him and carry him, if he would not walk ; such was his peaceable and sub- missive deportment. Again, they say he was drunk, and did not know what he was about. But where is the evidence to sustain this allegation ? A strong endeavor was made to establish this fact, which they deemed so material; but in this they to- tally failed. Although he had about three drinks, in all, yet he was by no means in- toxicated. The officer, very properly, prevented him from taking as much drink as he desired. Much has been said with regard to the conduct of the persons who had him in custody, and who have been examined as witnesses. They have been charg- ed as blood thirsty, and seeking the condemnation ofthe prisoner, with an inhuman # zeal, and persecuting spirit. But, is not this the mere declamation of counsel, unsup- ported by one spark of evidence. He was treated by them with more lenity than his conduct gave him any right to expect. He was cautioned, when using the lan- guage referred to, by the very man, Jacob Hogendobler, who is dow made the object of their most pointed and severe remarks, and, in whom, the prisoner, seems to have placed the gueatest confidence. True, be was one of the principal witnesses against him, and was called several times to the stand. But, there is nothing unusual in this. It is a matter of common occurrence. This was also the case with other witnesses during the trial of this very cause- Bat it is said be came forward voluntarily and divulged facts that he had not disclosed on his first examination. And, suppose he did, was it not right that he should do so? He was in attendance as a witness- brought by the process of the Court, and compelled to remain in attendance until the evidence was closed- It is equally clear that if he did omit to state anything material to the issue trying on his first, or any subsequent examination, to which his attention was not at that time drawn, or which had at the moment escaped his recol- lection, it became his duty, under the oath he had taken to tell the whole truth to come again before the court and make it known. Had he not done so, but wilfully kept back any material facts—he would have been guihy of perjurv, according to the settled law of the land- But, it is said he was officious-discovered a strong inclina- tion to have the prisoner condemned, and had said he ought to be hung. That he was seen speaking to the counsel of the commonwealth, during the progress of the trial. As to having formed and expressed an opinion of the guilt of the prisoner, it seems he vvas not alone in this respect, for several of the jurors were challenged lor having done the same. If this opinion has so warped and prejudiced his mind, against a fellow creature now being tried for his life, as to render him incapable of statin? the truth, and to induce him to speak those things which are absolutely false, and you believe him so wicked and base as to be in this situation—you will give the prisoner the full benefit of such conclusion. The respectability and character for truth however, of this witness is too well known and established, to be the least im- £Zl/v "y"V^ th3t haS bee,? alleSed~for, be it remembered, ihe counsel for the prisoner d,a not presume to call a witness to impeach his reputation in any respect. £?U .Ka'd -^ he'd C"nuVersaU0» with tbe commonwealth's counsel ; and so did llBOuco «r.J „„„ _. • • r . ---------J - ("vt.uuo Wlivciaauui Willi IIIC IT'l^tT^TA *°rtl£m ih.e ^ *« ca"> relied on, so that the J" V'oa*ot tt,e commonwealth. We do not feel the least inclined tomort We arei bound to presume the interviews had wiih our witnesses were olely for tie , I. pose of arriving 8l the truth-and that no attempt was nude, by an, one, iui e 171 wuh their consciences, or keep them back from speaking the truth, the whole trath and nothing but the truth. I felt it my duty to make these observations as this wit- ness has been selected and made the object of particular and scurrilous remarks. The witnesses for the commonwealth have all passed in review before you, and 1 think 1 may say, with confidence, that sitting as you have done in that box, separated from the world, free from all excitement, with minds anxiously inquiring after the truth and nothing else, that you have not discovered in them that disposition to magnify circumstances and to seek the life of the prisoner, that has been so uncourteously, to say the least of it, attributed to them. We can excuse counsel for saying many things, in the course of argument, under excited passions and feelings, which upon a different occasion would not be justifiable. The witnesses, thus attacked, can rely, with confidence, upon the reciitude of their own conduct and the favorable opinion of the public. Gentlemen, I will now claim your attention to what transpired at Mr. Hoffman's tavern, in Muncy. A great deal may be collected from this part of the case. I re- cognize that humane principle of the law that the admissions, and confessions, of a person charged with a criminal offence, are to be taken altogether, that which ope- rates in his favor as well as that against him ; and that they must be perfectly free from all inducement held out to the party, by promises, threats or otherwise. You have heard that nothing of this kind took place. Had there been, the court would, at once, have rejected the evidence. We are, therefore, to take his declarations as voluntarily made, and give them the weight they deserve. On being informed that they were about raising his wife, and getting Dr. Dougal to ascertain whether there was any arsenic in her—he made this remarkable observation, " there may be some in her, but I did not give it to her-" Now, if innocent, what reason had he to sup- pose there was arsenic in her ? Did he suggest anything of this kind at the time of her death, or before her interment ? Not a word do we hear on the subject. It is not till the moment the body is about to be raised, and the important fact brought to light, that we hear this intimation given. His conscience accused him at the instant, and he betrayed what was bearing upon his mind. He then resorted to this strata- gem to induce those present to believe that bis wife had taken the poison herself. He tells them that he had bought her a bottle of rum, sometime previous, and could not tell what had become of it. That he believed she kepi it in a trunk, at the head of her bed, locked, and had taken it in that. But, on the arrival of his mother, and his asking her about this bottle, the scheme vanishes, for she replied that the rum had been used two or three weeks before ; at a period when Mrs. Earls had expect- ed to be confined. But, gentlemen, there is another fact slated by the prisoner upon this occasion that I deem worthy of particular remark, and which, no doubt, has been deeply impressed upon your minds. It is this, "he said if it had not been for some woman, there would have been nothing of this fuss." The name of the woman was used by the prisoner, but, is not n«w recollected by the witness. Gentlemen, we may readily suppose who this woman was. It does not require any great depth of penetration to comprehend who, and what he alluded to. This woman has figured conspicuously in this cause, and to his intimacy with her, may be traced all his con- duct towards his unfortunate wife, and the horriJ crime with which he is now charged. Other declarations, and language of a suspicious import, were used by him at the same time, but as these have been repeatedly brought to your view by my colleague, and the prisoner's counsel, and commented upon, you have, doubtless, given them their proper weight, and marked their tendency. But, gentlemen, as black a trait as 1 have discovered in the character of the prison- er is the aitempt he made to charge this crime upon his aged mother. I allude to the language used to his daughters in the jail, that "it was tlu.t old bitch his moth- er that done it." This evinces a heart as hard as adamant—and a disposition to sacrifice even the woman that gave him being! But, where is the evidence of her guilt, or of her having participated, in the most remote degree, in this cruel deed ? We look in vain for the smallest particle. Does her conduct during the confinement of her daughter appear anything like that of guilt ? From the evidence it is shewn that they lived in peace with each other. She was remark-ably kind and attentive lo her during that period; and ailhough not a woman of refinement of manners, yet she ses.ms not devoid of those traits of character peculiar to her sex. She must, on the contrary, have been a fiend incarnate, to have participated, at such a time and on such an occasion, in so cool, so deliberate and so foul a murder—and that too wllhout any motive that can be imagined. Nor can any part of her conduct sine* givv rrie to the least suspicion. The manner in which fthe addressed bim on their 172 meeting at Hoffman's, already referred to, shews anything but a sense of guilt in her, nor did he then even insinuate that she was the person that had done the act. In conducting the defence, and in the argument, his counsel have departed altogether from this position taken by the prisoner, and have relied solely on the ground of the deceased having committed suicide. Besides, this old woman was examined and cross-examined, and if the counsel had thought her the guilty person, with all their ingenuity, they might have arrived at something like an exhibition of it. Ailhough not obliged to criminate herself—yet suspicion might have been raised, by a proper course of interrogation, so as to have answered the object of creating a doubt in your minds ; a matter of such vital importance to the prisoner. But we find nothing of the kind attempted. The testimony given by her is a plain, undisguised state- ment of facts, corroborated by other witnesses, and even relied upon by the prison- er's counsel, with other evidence in the cause to sustain the allegation that the de- ceased committed suicide, and that the prisoner is innocent. Yes, he said she did it. Here we find him, at the same moment that he told his daughters, in unquali- fied terms, that their mother did not perpetrate the act, now allege for the purpose of clearing him, and blasting her reputation, that his mother did it. But what did he mean by this ? True, she was msde the unconscious instrument of bearing the fatal bowl to her daughter. But this, of itself, leaves not a stain behind. If he in- tended, what, no doubt it was his design to induce others to believe, that she had knowingly and wilfully done the deed of death—then, we naturally inquire, how lie acquired this'knowledge? If be knew of it, at the time, and countenanced it, in any way, he stands guilty in the eye ofthe law. On the other hand if he knew of it, and yet did not divulge the fact immediately, but endeavored to conceal it, and shel- ter the criminal from justice—what are you to think of his declarations now, and in what light does he appear ? View his conduct, in either way, and it is by no means th».t of an innocent man. But the very fact of his at one time pointing out his wife, and at another time his mother, as the criminal agent, goes to shew that he was un- determined as to which, or what course to take, in order to protect himself; and Seemed to await the most favorable contingency of evems that might arise, to rest his defence upon. His counsel have selected these, as they suppose affording ihe only chance of defending him successfully, and whilst they attempt to make a felon of his deceased wife, they totally exculpate his mother. Having brought to your notice the material evidence in the cause, and replied to the prominent arguments on behalf of the prisoner, as, I trust, in a satisfactory man- ner, I shall submit the case to you af,er a few additional observations. You have been told "that the prosecution have resorted to unusual pains to prove the crime upon the prisoner;" that " every law of feeling and humanity has been trampled upon," and that he has hardly enjoyed those rights which are guaranteed to him by the constitution and laws of his country. I ask you, gentlemen, whether you are prepared to give an answer of approbation to these allegations of counsel, or, rather, have you not heard them uttered with astonishment. My colleague and myself appeal lo this honorable Court—to yourselves, ar.d ihe audience in daily attendance, to bear witness to our conduct during the progress of this cause. We do not feel conscious of having violated any principle of morality, law or religion ; nor have any of the rights and privileges of the prisoner bean in the smallest particular disregarded. His vigilant counsel, ever on the alert to seize upon the smallest matter that could turn up in his favor, would never have stood by and seen his sacred rights withheld or abused. Had the counsel of the commonwealth been so far forgetful of their du- ty, their character at this bar, and their respect for the Couit, as to have attempt- ed an invasion of the rights of a fellow man arraigned at the bar of his country to answer for one of the highest crimes known to our law, this honorable, humane and intelligent Court, sitting as counsel with the prisoner, would at once have crushed the attempt in terms of marked disapprobation. Our duty to the commonwealth it was obligatory upon us to discharge with fidelity and according to the best of our abilities. We trusc we have done so. The cause was prepared with all that care and attention that was requisite to insure a conviction, it" the prisoner was guilty; our duty demanded this at out hands—the commonwealth having confided to us one of her most important trusts—had a right to expect a faithful discharge of it. The laws of the country, and the welfare of society do not countenance that sickly kind of mercy that the gentlemenspeak of so eloquently, which, if indulged in, would be productive of the most fatal consequences. The certainty of punishment, say all writers on the subject, is the great excellence of every criminal code, and of the administration of public justice. But what certainty could there be in the conyie- 173 tion and punishment of offenders, If those who are entrusted with the execution of the laws, prove careless and indifferent in the discharge of their duty, and "bear the sword inAain?" None! Crime would sUik unpunished through the land to the terror ot the citizens and the disgrace ofthe nation. The counsel have drawn a rccft affecting picture of the situation of the prisoner, with his little children weeping and clinging around the criminal box. True, it is a moving sight, and I have witnessed your feelings of humanity mingling with the stern dictates of duty. Ii is a painful struggle—and was the testimony of such a character as to leave a rea- sonable doubt upon the mind of any one of you, it would, perhaps, be the happiest period of your life, when you should return to this bar to pronounce a verdict of not guilty. But, a conviction of the truth compels us to say, that from a dispassion- ate view of the evidence in the cause, this happy relief does not await you. The fac's disclosed all point to the prisoner, and centre in him as the guilty person. You have been asked in a most impressive manner, that in case you should con- demn this man on the testimony you have heard, and it should be made manifest to yourselves and an assembled universe, on tbe great judgment day, that he was in- nocent of ihe charge, what would be your feelings on the important secret being re- vealed ? Gentlemen, the only reply we can make to this appeal, is this, that all that is required or expected of U3 now, is to act according to the light and know- ledge we possess, wi'.b. an honest disposition to discharge our duty faithfully, as God and the laws of our country require- And in doing so, if we err, it will never be a cause of self-reproach in this life, nor a condemnation or unhappiness in the world to come. 1 may ask you on my part, if, being satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner, you should still be induced by feelings of humanity, or those moving appeals to your passions, to acquit him, how would you reconcile this to your consciences, under the solemn obligations resting upon you ? The duty you have to perform, 1 am deeply sensible, is of the most painful and solemn nature. The life of a fellow be- ing is in your hands. From this duty you cannot, you will not shrink. The prison- er looks to you for a deliverance, if innocent; and the commonwealth for a verdict of guilty, if the charge has been sustained. CHARGE ©F TI3E COURT. The Hon. Ellis Lewis charged the jury as follows:— Gentlemen of the jury— This important trial is gradually drawing to a close, and the period is fast ap- proaching when you will be relieved from the arduous duties in which you have been engaged- The court have witnessed with regret the privations to which you have been' subjected. Ever since you were empannelled in this cause, you have been placed under the charge of the officers and kept constantly together. But this was necessary, in order that you might be preserved free from the excitement which agitates the public mind, and thus be able to discharge the solemn obliga- tion you are severally under to determine this cause according to the evidence de- livered before you in court, and not according to popular feelings and prejudices. It is unknown to the court, and immaterial to you, whether the excitement is for or against the prisoner at the bar. It is sufficient for you to know that this cause must be determined by the law and the evidence. We have no doubt of your determin- ation to found your verdict upon these, and these only. 'The court have observed, with pleasure, the undivided attention which you have devoted to this cause, and, that during the whole course of the time, no juror has at any time desired to with- draw from the court house, during the sittings of the court, either for recreation or otherwise. For this close and severe application to business, thus facilitating the progress of the cause, the court feel it to be their duty to express to you their thanks. . In tbe investigation of that part of this case, involving questions in medical jurisprudence, we have been greatly aided by gentlemen of science in chemistry and in medicine. With the eminent scientific acquirements of Dr. Hepburn we were acquainted before, and also with the eminent professional ability of Dr. Dougal. But we were agreeably surprised to witness the great chemical knowledge of Dr. Kittoe, and the extensive professional knowledge of Dr. Ludwig. The duty of giving evidence in Courts of Justice, is one of the most irksome and responsible duties which belong to the medicafprofession. These gentlemen have discharged 174 that duty in a manner so c.-.niid, plain and satisfactory, and exhibiting such extensive y-ese-arch in the sciences which they profess, that they are entitled to the commen- dation of the community. It is proper that we should acknowledge the obliga- tion in this public manner, and we do so with great pleasure. We have been greatly aided, likewise, by the ability with which this cause has been conducted by the professional gentlemen engaged on each side. The prison- er has been aided by three gentlemen of distinguished ability, standing among the first in the profession to which they belong ; and they have discharged their duty with a zeal and ability which does them honor. The commonwealth has also been represented by gentlemen of ihe first character in the profession, and the manner in which they have sustained the interests of the state, must receive the high com- mendation ofthe community. We have had these aids in the trial of this cause, and it seems proper that we should make ihe acknowledgment. Something has been said, in the course ofthe argument, in relation to the re- sponsibilities which have fallen upon you. The duties you have to discharge are responsible ones; but they are responsibilities from which you are not to shrink. It is proper that you should feel these responsibilities, but a just sense of them should have no other influence upon your minds than to induce yon to examine into the case with the more care and deliberation, and to come to a determination according to the very best judgment you can command. On the one hand, the prisoner, if innocent, is entitled to demand at your hands, a speedy deliverance from the jeo. pardy in which he is placed. On the other hand, if guilty, your duty to the com- monwealth requires you to say so, in order lhat the law shall have its course. This is a criminal case. In criminal cases, ihe jury are the judges of the iaw, as well as the factj. 'I he court is the consti'uiional organ to advise you in mat- ters of law. It ia then left to you to make such a determination as your judgment shall sanction. The prisoner at the bar stands charged with the crime of wilful and delibe- rate MURDER. The first count charges him with the murder of Catharine Earl9, by means ot white arsenic, mingled in a bowl of chocolate. The second count charges him with the murder of the said Catharine Earls by means of while arsenic min- gied i'i a bowl of tea. By the common law, murder is the voluntary killing of a person of malice aforethought If the poison was designedly administered, with intention to kill, the malice is implied. By the act of assembly of the twenty sec- cond April 179-i, it is declared that "all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, shall be deemed murder in the first degree. " It will not be ne- cessary for you to enter into any inquiry in regard to the distinction between muir der in the second degree and murder in the first degree. In this case, the crime charged is that of murder in the first degree. And, under the evidence in the r.ause the prisoner must be entirely acquitted, or absolutely convicted of the crime with which he stands charged. Some objection Has been taken to the description of the poison. It is true that the drug is known among chemists by the names of arsenious acid, white oxide of ar- senic, 8tc. But in France, Spain, Germany and England it is also known by the name of white arsenic. The term white arsenic is that which is most usually adopted in legal proceedings. The poison is legally and properly described by that name. While upon this question it may be proper to remark that it is immaterial by what kind of poison Catharine E iris was destroyed. If she was murdered by the prison^ er, by means of puisjn of any kind, it will be sufficient to sustain the indictment. In entering upon the investigation of this cmse, the prisoner is to he presumed ini nocent of all crime until his guilt is established by evidence. The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude every hypothesis, but that of the prisoner's guilt, before you can find him guilty. If you can take any view of the facts, which shall consist with his innocence, that view ought to be adopted ; and if you have reasonable doubts of his guilt, thos- doubts entitle him, by the laws of his country, to an acquittal. The legal test lo be applied to the evidence, is, is it sufficient to sa- tisfy your understandings and consciences, beyond all reasonable doubts, of his guilt? If it is of this character you ought to find him guilty ; if it is not of this convinc- ing characier you ought to acquit him. 'The inquiry may be divided into two branches: first, wv.s the death of Catharine Earls caused by poison ? Second, if so, was it designedly caused by the prisoner at the bar? And here it may not be improper to notice a fallacy used in the course of the argument in regard to what was called the science of probabilities. One of the medical gentlemen testified lhat in his opinion neither of the chemical tests, by i'-iseii, would be sufficient to establish, with certainty, the prosence ol arsenic, but 175 that a certain number of tests would be sufficient for that purpose. It was urged, that if no one was sufficient, all together would not be sufficient, and that a multi- plication of nothings could never amount to any thing. But a chemical test, indi- cating the presence of arsenic, is not merely nothing. It counts something, and a sufficient number of tests, under proper management, may establish, with certainty, the existence of arsenic. One log may not be sufficient to erect a building, but a number of logs may be sufficient ; one shingle may not cover it but a number of shingles may be sufficient for the purpose. The first branch of the inquiry then, is, was the death of Catharine Earls caused by poison ? In coming to a conclusion, on this part of ihe case, the jury will con- sider all the circumstances. And, first, the suddenness of her death. It is in evidence that she was confined on Wednesday, ihe fourteenth day of October, 1S35, and after delivery, was ieft by ihe matron who attended her, as well, if not better, than usual. The next day, Thursday, the fifteenth, she sat up with her child by the lire, in order that the bed might be made—exhibited the infant to one of her daughters—gave it nourishment at her Dreast—ate a hearty dinner—wtis cheerful and pleased with the attentions of her husband, and between seven and eight o'clock in the evening ate a hearty supper, consisting, among other things, of a pint bowl of chocolate. In little better than an hour she was seized with violent vomiting, and between three and four o'clock, in the ensuing morning, she was a corpse. This, of itself, would not prove that her death was caused by poison, but it is a circumstance to be taken into consideration, in the next place, the symptoms are to be taken into consideration. Orfila, who is esteemed the best French writer on the subject o? poisons, enume- rates a large number of symptoms which may exist in cases of poisoning by arsenic, but he adds that it is rare to^see them all in ihe same person, and sometimes all are wanting. Among the symptoms generally attending cases of that kind, according lo the testimony of the medical gentlemen, are: vomiting, pain in the stomach and all over the body, a sense of burning heat in the stomach, intense ihiist, efforts to vomit, gagging. 'The evidence is, that Catharine Earis vomited till she could vomit no more —gagged—complained of pain all over, and called for drink with tiie last words she ever spoke. You will judge whether ihe symptoms described by the medical witnesses as generally existing in cases of poisoning by arsenic, were to b<* found in the case of Mrs. Earls. If so, it is another circumsance worthy of consid- er.iTion. The next matter worthy of attention is : the appearances of the body on de- fection. These are not uniform in cases of poisoning by arsenic ; but the appearances which, the authorities say, are sometimes to be found, are, livid stripes or patches: on the body, the coats of the stomach highly inflamed, and easily separable, the duo- denum and intestines also inflamed, the brain turgid, the cavities ot the heart filled with blood. You have heard the evidence ofthe physicians who conducted lhe/>oa^ mortem examination, and will judge whether these appearances were found upon that occasion. According to the testimony of the physicians, all the cavities of the heart, not only the auricles, which receive ihe blocd into it, but the ventricles, from which it is made to pass out, were filled with blood ; and that this appearance wus unusual and unnatural. When we have the evidence that this strong muscular organ was thus suddenly arrested in the performance of its last pulsation, it may be regarded as a circum- stance indicating the influence of some violent and uunaiural cause. Still, ibis is not, of iiself, lo be regarded as sufficient proof that the death was caused by poison. It is to be taken into view, wiih the other facts in ihe cause. The next subject for consideration is the chemical tests which were applied to Ihe contents of the -stomac/i and duodenum, which were conveyed to Muncy for tximination. Here, in the presence of the scientific gentlemen assembled, »>"o of the usual les's were applied; first the nitrate oj silver, which produced the yellow precipitate, wnioh should be produced if aisenic were present; and, secondly, the sulphate of copper, which pro- duced the grass green, called Scheele's green, u paint with which many of sun art: fa- in.liar, and which is composed of arsenic and copper. The results in these c.i.-'-s Uc-rt such as should have been produced, according to the laws of chemistry, if ar- senic were present. These two tests, are insufficient of themselves, lo establish the presence ot poison ; but they may be regarded as indications which should be considered with ihe other facta in evidence. A portion of the contents ofthe stum-ch. Was taken to Milton, where other experiments were made, in ihe presence ot Dr. Dougal and Mr. Morrison, a chemist of that place. The ammoniacal sulphate of cop- per {.roduced the Scheele's green—the sii'phureittd hydrogen gas produced ihe yeltovj 176 sulphuret or orpiment, and this precipitate, on being sublimed, produced the metallic . ring. 'These results were such, as by the laws of chemistry, ought to have been produced, if white arsenic were present in the substance to which the tests were applied. These are strong indications of the presence of arsenic, but as the ring is not so clearly exhibited on the tube as is usual in such cases, and as no tests were applied to it for the purpose of proving it to be the metallic arsenic, it is not to be regarded as conclusive evidence ofthe presence of that poison. The remaining por- tion of the contents of the stomach and duodenum were conveyed by Mr. Killoe to Philadelphia, and there in his presence and in the presence of that eminent chemist Dr. Mitchell, further experiments were tried. It was discovered in Philadelphia, that a white powder had subsided, and was deposited at the bottom of the jar which contained the fluid intended to be examined. This was supposed to be the poison. A portion of this was placed in a tube and sublimed over a spirit lamp with the usual preparations for producing the metallic arsenic. A fine and well defined ar- senical ring was produced which you have seen exhibited before you. Some por- tions of this ring were placed upon a live coal and gave out the alliacious odour of arsenic, which is a smell somewhat resembling garlic. Other portions of the me- tal were tested wiih ihe ammoniated sulphate of copper, and produced the Scheele's green. Another portion of the white powder was then dissolved, and this solu- tion, with the ammoniated sulphate o'f copper, in like manner, produced the Scheele's green. With ammoniated nitrate of silver it produced the canary yellow, which is produced by arsenic. By the laws of chemistry this yellow arsenite of sil- ver changes its color by the action of light from yellow to black, which you find from the specimen exhibited is the case here. A part of the solution of the white powder found was then tested with lime -water, which produced the characteristic results of arsenic, a white focculent precipitate. The remaining portion of the solu- tion of the white powder was precipitated by a stream of sulphuretted hydrsgen : the precipitate was of a deep sulphur yellow, characteristic of the presence of arsenic. A portion of this precipitate, under the usual management for subliming, produced an arsenical ring; the metallic arsenic. In addition to ail these experiments, a vi- al containing a portion of the white powder itself, as it was found in the stomach, is produced here in court, subject to the application of any further test which may be thought necessary to determine its nature. We have, further, the opinion ot gen- tlemen of medical and chemical science, that this substance is indubitably arsenic, and that in their opinion the death of Catharine Earls was caused by arsenic. To entertain any doubts, upon this part of the case, after all this evidence, standing as it does, unrebutted and unrepelled, would be to doubt against a mass of overwhelm- ing testimony ,• against ihe opinions of gentlemen of high professional skill, and against a combination of some of the highest chemical tesis which can be furnished by the lights of science. The court have no doubt whatever upon this Dart of the case, and, as it belongs to the department of medical jurisprudence, we have deem- ed it our duty to express the clear conviction which this evidence has produced in our minds. Still you will remember, that in this, as in all other questions in this cause, you are the judges. If you come to the conclusion lhat her death was caus- ed by poison, the next inquiry to which we are brought, is: was it designedly caus- cd by the prisoner at ihe bar? This is a matter of fact which belongs peculiarly and exclusively to you to determine. In proceeding to determine this question, you will remember that you cannot con- vict unless the chain of circumstances is so strong, and so connected together as to exclude eveiy hypothesis but lhat of the guilt ot the prisoner; and that if there is ttp.y view which can be taken of the facts of the cause which shall consist with his innocence, it is your duly to adopt that view, and 10 render a verdict in his favor. 'The hypothesis offered by the prisoner's counsel is, that Catharine Earls destroyed ht-iseif—itut she committed ihe crime of suicide. In support of this defence, the declarations of the deceased have been given in evidence. These declarations may be divided into two classes:—first, tho*e indicating a state of despondency and that she would not iive long, or would not survive her approaching confinement. And, secondly, those indicating a specific intention to destroy herseit by poison. To ac- count lor the general declarations wt oespondency, the commonwealth's counsel have shown, by two witnesses, Dr. Tower and Dr. Ludwig, that this is not unfrequent with ladies in the condition of pregnancy. You will judge whether these declara- tions were produced by this cause alone, and will also determine whether, if they were so produced, the stale of mind thus occasioned would be likely to continue alter she had passed in safety through the hour of nature' extremity. The specific 177 declarations of an intention to destroy herself depend chiefly upon the testimony of Diantha Marinus, Sabina Moritz, Henrietta Moritz, and, perhaps, James M'Coy.— It this evidence is believed,your verdict ought to be in favor of the prisoner. But the evidence of self-destruction depends mostly upon the testimony of Diantha Marinus, Sabina and Henrietta Moritz. In deciding whether these witnesses are to be believed, you will take into consideration the evidence adduced by the com- monwealth to impeach their character" for truth and veracity. So far as Sabina anjl Henrietta Moritz are concerned, no attempt whatever was made to sustain their reputations for truth. You will also compare this with the circumstances attending her death—her willingness and anxiety to take remedies to remove her complaint. ^ It is in evidence that while she was suffering with pain and violent vomiting, she declared in answer to an inquiry as to the cause of her sufferings, that she did not know. If she had taken the poison herself, lor the purpose of self-destruction, she did know the cause of her distress, and must have known in that case that she was shorily to appear before the bar of God. It would be singular if, at such a time, she would falsify. If you should come to the determination that she did not destroy herself, the inquiry still remains, whether her destruction was designedly caused by the prisoner at the bar. Among the facts in support of the indictment, the commonwealth have given in evidence the purchase of arsenic by the prisoner, on the thirteenth of October, the day before the confinement of Catharine Earls. But the prisoner has shown that he was in the habit of using this drug in the destruction of minks which visited his fish basket—that he purchased it at other times for this purpose, and that be placed some upon a fish in his fish basket, the day before the death of" his wife. This evidence diminishes the force of the evidence arising from the purchase of arsenic. Still the fact remains, that he had the arsenic within his reach, and knew its deleterious pro- perties. And if the other evidence in the cause, satisfies you that he used it for the purpose of destroying his wife, and by that means accomplished that object, you ought to find him guilty. If the other evidence does not satisfy you of his guilt, you ought to acquit him. As one of the links in the chain of circumstances, which the commonwealth have undertaken to establish, they have attempted to show a motive for the commission of the crime. With this view, evidence was givsn tending to show that the prisoner's affections had become estranged from his wife—that an intimate and close attach- ment existed on his part, towards 1,'ana Moritz, and that the deceased stood in the way of the prisoner, so that he could not enjoy the gratification arising from this im- proper intimacy, and that therefore, it is alleged, there was a motive to remove the deceased out ofthe way, as an obstacle which interfered between the prisoner and -the object of his desires. This is resisted by the prisoner, on the ground that there is no evidence ofa marriage in fact, betv/een the prisoner and the deceased, and it is urged that if there was no marriage there could be no motive to dissplve it. It is in evidence that the prisoner and the deceased lived and cohabited as man and wife for more than fifteen years; that they were, during that time, the parents of seven children, and that they were constantly recognized by each other as hus- band and wife. This evidence is not rebutted by any counter evidence. The Court have already instructed you that the prisoner is to be presumed innocent of alt crime, until his guilt is established by evidence. That principle will apply to this part of the case. The presumption is, that this cohabitation was an innocent cohabitation, in accordance with the laws of the land, and therefore that it was under the sanctity of matrimonial obligation. It is not to be presumed, without evidence, that these parties were living, during all this period of time, in open aduitery and in violation of the law. If, therefore, the attachment to Maria Moritz is shown to be so strong as alleged, there is sufficient evidence ofthe marriage with the deceased, to make out the motive assigned. The jury will bear in mind that the motive is only one link in the chain of circumstances, and that the intimacy with Maria Moritz, no matter how criminal it may have been, is not to be regarded as proof that the prisoner "is guilty of the crime charged in the indictment. One crime is not to be inferred from the existence of another. The jury will determine from the evidence, whether the prisoner seriously at- tempted to escape from those who had him in custody, on this charge. If the prison- er made a serious attempt lo fly from the justice of his country, it may be regarded as a circumstance against him, because the "guilty flee when no one pursueth." We have now, gentlemen, discharged the last duty imposed upon us, until youc' verdict shall require oihers at our hands, imparting i-beedom or death, lo the prison- 178 er at the bar. In the language of the law, and in the language of the counsel for the prisoner, he has placed himself upon God and his country. You are that country* If innocent, he is entitled to a speedy deliverance—if guilty, the obligations you have taken, require you to say so. May that Omniscient Judge, at whose dread chnncery we all must answer for our proceedings here, guide you to a righteous and correct determination of this all-important cause- Gentlemen, the cause is with you. At h^f past five o'clock, P. M. on Monday the 15th, the jury retired for final de- liberation, and the court adjourned to meet forthwith at the ringing ofthe bell. At twenty minutes before seven, on the same evening, the court opened, and the jury returned a ,verdict of "GUILTY, IN MANNER AND FORM AS STATED IN THE INDICTMENT." The jury being polled, at the request of the prisoner's counsel, severally assented to the verdict. After the verdict hid been recorded, Mr. Parsons, for the prisoner, requested time, u.Xl the following morning, to move for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. The Court thereupon adjourned till nine o'clock on Tuesday morning. Tuesday Morning, February 16. The counsel for the prisoner move in arrest of judgment, for the following rea» sons:— 1. That it is not alleged in either count in the indictment that the defendant knew the white arsenic to be a deadly poison—as, by law, the commonwealth was bound to allege. 2. It is not alleged in the indictment that the chocolate in which it is averred that the white arsenic was mixed and mingled, was given to the said Catharine Earls to drink, either by the said John Earls or any other person. 3. That the second count does not allege that the defendant intended to com- mit the crime '• of h'i3 malice aforethought," as is therein alleged he did commit it. The counsel for the prisoner also move for a new trial on the following grounds : 1. Because one of the jurors had made'a bet on the week before the court that the defendant v/ould oe convicted ; and this fact was not known to the defendant or his counsel until after the jury were sworn, and then during the progress of the trial. 2. That one of the jurors was seen and believed to be asleep during the deliver- ing of the testimony, and frequently while the argument of the cause vvai progress- ing. After the several reasons assigned for a new trial and in arrest of judgment had been argued at length, ihe court delivered their opinion as follows:— By the Court.—Tbe seeond count omits the averment that the prisoner intend- ed by means of poison to kill and murder the deceased. It is at least doubtful whether this count is sufficient. The prisoner is entitled to the benefit of this doubt, and the judgment on the second count, is, therefore, arrested. The first count con- tains an express allegation of the prisoner's intention of his malice aforethought to kill and murder the deceased ; and his knowledge that white arsenic was a deadly poison is sufficiently shown in the averment that he did knowingly, -wilfully, and feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, put, mix and mingle, a certain deadly poison, to wit: white arsenic, &c. It is not necessary to aver that the chocolate containing the poison was given to the deceased to drink either by the prisoner or any other person ; it is suthcient if it appears by the indictment that for the purpose of mur- dering the deceased he mingled the poison in chocolate which he knew was pre- pared to be administered to her to drink, and that she did drink it, and was there- by destroyed. All this is apparent from the indictment, which is drawn according to the precedent in the cuse of Miss Blandy, 3 Cidtty, c. d. 523, which was follow- ed in the cases of Mm a, and Mrs. Chapman. The first count of the indictment is therefore valid. It is true lhat in civil cases, where there is a general verdict of damages on several counts of a declaration, one of which is defective, the judg- ment must be arrested as to both, because the court cannot apportion the damages. Bui '.he rule is different in criminal cases, where the court are bound to pass the ap- propriate sentence on each valid count in the indictment. The first count contains a complete charge of murder in the first degree, and as the verdict stands the com- -^---_.„i.>. [.^ a j-jo-bt to e«H for thi h'do"-^"* nF the law -jnon tlwt eount. 179 The reasons in support of the motion for a new trial have not been sustained by any evidence. The objection to one of the jurors, on account of offering to bet on the event, was communicated to the prisoner's counsel more than ten days before the verdict. It ought to have been laid before the Court as soon as known. The rule is settled that a party cannot take his chance of a verdict in his favor, and at the same time keep in reserve a motion for a new trial. 5 Bin. 340. The. same princi- ple applies to the objection that one of the jurors was asleep in open court during a part ofthe trial. If this were a fact, it occurred in the presence of all parties, and might have been shown. But there is no evidence of either of these allegations, and the Court do not consider them sufficient to justify a further continuance for the purpose of proving them. Judgment is therefore ordered on the first count of the indictment. The Court then addressed the prisoner as follows:—"Prisoner! have you any- thing further to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced ?" To which he replied—" Well, I think I have not had a fair chance—1 am. innocent !" His Honor, Ellis Lewis, thereupon delivered the sentence of the law as follows : SENTENCE. The Court cannot conceal their deep and unutterable emotions at the melancholy predicament in which you are placed. . They sympathize deeply with'you and wiiu the innocent little ones who still cling around you in this distressing hour of extre- mity. Whatever you may suggest for their welfare and protection, will be cheerr fully and faithfully attended to by the Court. Painful as may be the task, and deep- ly as we are affected on this solemn occasion, we are required to perform our last melancholy duty in this cause by pronouncing the sentence ofthe law. You have been charged wiih the crime of wilful and deliberate murder. The. hu- manity ofthe law extended to you the privilege of twenty peremptory challenges, without assigning any cause whatever, and as many more as you could assign causa for. You enjoyed the full benefit of this humane provision, and a jury was thus empannelled of yeur own selection. You have had the benefit of able and distin- guished counsel, whose zealous and talented exertions in your behalf, have done ho- nor to their heads and hearts. In the progress of die cause, all doubtful questions which arose, were uriformly solved in your favor. If you offered evidence of doubt- ful admissibility, your evidence was-uniformly received. If tbe commonwealth of- fered similar evidence and you objected to its udn.i ;rio:i, such evidence was uni- formly rejected. If you offered evidence out of its proper order in time, it was dis.- cretionary with the Court to receive or reject it, but your evidence was constantly received. And in accordance with another humane provision in tha law, the jury were instructed lhat if they entertained reasonable doubts of your guilt, those doubt.-* entitled you to a verdict of an acquittal. You have therefore had as full and as fair *T / a trial as the laws of the country ever extend to any individual whatever. Of all crimes, that of wilful and deliberate murder is perhaps the most foul and unnatural. Of all means by which a deed so dire can be committed, that of POISON evinces, perhaps, the most cold-blooded deliberation. Of all persons who may be the subject of this crime, the wile of your bosom —the modier of your children—the: partner of your lot—whose name and whose civil existence was merged in your own, should have been the last to be thus destioyed in the hour of unsuspecting con- fidence. Of all occasions for a deed so dreadful, ihe selection of that period when she was prostrated upon the bed of her confinement, with the new-born br.be in lielpless infancy by her side, manifests "a heart the most regardless of social dtuy and fatally beru on mischief" Of such a murder, and with such attending circum- stances, a jury of your country have prommiioed ymi O'JILTY. it was a deed of davkuess—but, as if the finge.- of Providence had interposed; in accordance with, lhat well established truth that ,l murder will out," ;:.ubdc suspi- cion was aroused. The grave gave up its contents—that heart whose aii-ctions had clung around you for more than fifteen ytai.-i, was the first lo proclaim, by its ven- tricles filied with blood, that its pulsations iiad been suddenly arrested oy tile o;>t.ra- tion of some sudden, violent and unnatural cause. The chemical atrimties of nature's. elements rushed together to confirm the charge, and to identify ihe poisonous drug by which the life of this unhappy woman was destroyed, the soleim. spectacle una day pi useii^d, may bs. a lesson to uil around, and y those who ibhuw us. in all tints / 180 to come, that no deed of dark iniquity can hope to escape detection. As your time must necessarily be short in this world, you are admonished to prepare to appear at the bar of that Almighty Judge, whose Omniscience enables him to distinguish with unerring certainty the innocent fruai the guilty. We are to take the verdict as es- tablishing your guilt with absolute certainty, and must proceed to pronounce the sentence ofthe law, which is, i!i:it you, JOHN EARLS, be taken hence to the place from ivhence you cnne, within the jail ofthe county of Lycoming, and from thence to the place of execution, within the walls or yard of the said jail; and that you be there hanged by the neck until you are DEAD! And may God have mercy u^on your soul. On the 28th of March, an application in due form was made by the counsel-for the prisoner to the Supreme Court, sitting in l-Tii'.adeiphia, for a writ of error, accom- panied with a brief argument by Mr. Parsons, in the form of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice. A copy of which, together with the reply of Judge Gibson, has been politely furnished the reporters, by the prisoner's counsel. LETTER OF A. V. PARSONS, ESQ. Bellefoxte, March 28, 1836. Hon. John B. Giepon : SIR—I c-iime to this place for the purpose of attending an adjourned Court, and brought with me the enclosed copy of a record from Lycoming county, of the conviction of John Eirls, for homicide, intending to apply to his Honour Judge Huston for a special allocatur, for a writ of error in said case ; but learning that fie was in Philadelphia, and that the Court were sitting in Bank, I beg leave to make the application to your Honour, in order that it may be laid before the whole Court, And if the reasons that we assign are deemed worthy of any consideration, I most respectfully request lhat the writ may be allowed, in order that the counsel of the prisoner may be heard before the highest tribunal in the state, in behal." of one con- demned to die, and his case fully considered by that Court. Learning from gentlemen of great experience in the profession, t'.iat in applica- tions of this description, it is usual to fciv.ard a copy of "lie errors intended to be relied upon, and assigned, if a writ of error should be gr-nV.ed—also, a brief argu- ment on those errors, tcither with a reference to the authorities—it is with the ut- most cheerfulness that 1 comply with what I suppose to be the established practice, although 1 came to this place totally unprepared for it. 1. The first error we complain of is, that the Court erred in not arresting the judgment on the first reason assigned upon the record. 2. That the Court erred in not arresting the judgment on the second reason as- signed upon the record. 3. That the jury did not ascertain in their verdict the degree of murder of which the prisoner is guilty, whether of murder in the first or second degree, as they were bound to do according to the provisions of the second section of the act of the 22nd of April, 1791.. 4. That the Court erred in pronouncing sentence of death upon the prisoner as the verdict of the jury is now rendered. The first reason assigned in arrest of judgment is "that it is not alleged in the indictment that the defendant knew the white arsenic to be a deadly poison as bv law the commonwealth is bound to allege." In indictments precedents may be said to be law, and on a careful examination of the books of forms in criminal cases within my range, 1 find but one precedent where it is not averred that the defendant knew that the substance was a deadly poison. In Jlrchbold's Criminal Pleadings, page 233, the form is so drawn. In 3 Chitty C. Law, page 530, (side "page 775,) the form is drawn in the same manner; in the next page the same form is given—so in the following page 777 ; such likewise are the prece- dents in every other book that I have been able to obtain ; and it appears to me to be a ye-y necessary averment. For one might innocently adminster poison as a medicine, ignorant that it would kill—or it might be given to a sick person through mistake The knowledge and intention with which the poison is given seems to me to constitute the very essence ofthe offence; and in Pennsylvania, where there r.re iv.-o dt grees of murder, 1 hold it indispensably necessary. The only precedent th; Milton, in Northumberland county, about harvest time of that year; we never lived happily together. I continued to live in Milton, for thirteen years. In March 1834, I moved with my family to the Muncy dam. I always fol- lowed the business of a boatman, waterman and fisherpian. Shortly after I settled there, I became acquainted with a young woman of that neighborhood, named Maria Moritz. This acquaintance grew into an improper intercourse between her and me—and I became passionately attached to her. On this account I began to meditate the destruction of my late wife. We lived very unhappily together, on account of my intimacy with Maria Moritz. I had it in view for several months before her death, to get clear of the encumbrance of my marriage with her, by taking her life. With these wicked and murderous intentions I purchased white arsenic of Mr. Sheffley, of Lewisburg, in Union county, in the month of August 1835; 1 told him I wanted it to destroy rats. I put a small part of this arsenic in an apple, by cutting the skin and putting it in the apple with a knife. My wife ate the apple, and soon became sick and vomited. She recovered short- ly afterwards- She took it in the evening—and appeared to be well next day* I abandoned the design of taking her life in that way, and was alarmed at the reflection upon the subject. Y 185 Subsequently the design to do this cruel and wicked act was again consid- ered and cherished by me. I bought another small quantity of arsenic of John S. Carter, a druggist in Northumberland; I told Mr. Carter that I wanted to use it to destroy minks and muskrats, in my business as a fisher- man. I purchased this also with an intention to give it to my wife. I put a small quantity of it in a tumbler of sweet cider, which had been recently brought home. This was tvvo or three weeks befor^e her confinement, in the evening; in about half an hour, perhaps longer, she became sick—she vomited a good deal—she seemed well enough the next day. Some of th« arsenic 1 lost by carrying it in my pockets. I continued to meditate the taking of the life of my poor wife in order that I might indulge my attachment to Maria Moritz. Upon the day of the general election, in October 1835,1 purchased white arsenic again of Bruner & Dawson in Muncy. I am not certain what I paid for it, but I rather think it was 121 cents. I used some of this by putting it in a fish at the fish basket in the afternoon of the day in which my wife took the rest, as stated by my little son Samuel in his testimony upon my trial—his statement is correct. After I came home, my mother was preparing a supper for my wife—she poured out a bowl full of chocolate for that purpose and placed it on the stove. I ate my supper with my children, and then while my mother was getting rearlv to take the supper up stairs to mv wife, I PUT THE ARSENIC INTO THE CHOCOLATE AS IT STOOD UPON THE STOVE. I took the candle and lighted my mother up stairs with the sup- per so prepared by myself, to take the life of my unsuspecting wife. I sat upon a chair by her, at the foot of the bed on which she lay, while she ate the poisoned supper of chocolate/ The statements of Miss Sechler and of my daughter Mary Ann, in their respective evidence upon my trial, are correct as nearly as I can recollect. When my wife became sick, and began to vomit from the efipct of the arsenic, which she had taken in the chocolate, mint tea was prepared lor her by my daughter Mary Ann and myself; I PUT ARSENIC IN THE TEA ; it was so put in that my daughter did not know of it. My wife tasted it, and said it was bitter. Mv mother and I then made another cup of the same kind of tea for my wife ; I ALSO PUT ARSENIC IN THAT, but it was so done as that my mother did not know it. She tasted that also, and said it was just like the other. The testimony of the witnesses, as to her sickness and death, i$ correct so far as I know the facts. I went for our neighbor, 3Irs. Callahan, as quickly as I could, because I began to be alarmed at the consequences of the act I had done. The mint tea, which Mrs. Sechler in her testimony stated was upset at ihe fire, and which she saw running towards her on the floor, was intention- ally upset by me, but was so done as to have the appearance of accident\ she was right in her suspicions in relation to that matter* I had kept myself partly intoxicated for some months before I committed this worst of all the bad acts of my life, being infatuated by my attachment to Maria Moritz. * My poor old mother has been suspected to have been a party in this hor- rid and cruel murder. I here state, as a duty I owe to the world, to my mother* and to my Creator} that she was entirely innocent and ignorant of 187 the act; I have staled that my mother advised mfe to drown my deceased wife. This she riever did do; I made the statement to my late counsel and other persons, hoping that suspicion might rest upon her, and that the pub- lic would consider me innocent. On one occasion my mother said to me if Catharine Was out ofthe way I might get Maria Moritz. No human being was concerned with me in concocting, contriving, or ex- ecuting this cruel deed ; and the only exciting motive that urged his to take the life of my wife, was the unhallowed and ill-fated attachment I had form- ed for Maria. Although frequent domestic quarrels arose between my wife and myself, yet those for nearly two years pdst were in consequence of the attention which I devoted to Maria Moritz. Before we removed, from Milton to Muncy dam, and after we removed there, my wife was occasionally intoxicated, which formed another source of our domestic unhappitiess. I have, in some of our quarrels, struck my wife with my hand, and injuriously beaten her ; but I did not knock her down and draw her over the fioor with the stove rake, as testified to by Susan M'Callaster on my trial; she was mistaken in that statement. My affection for Maria Moritz was far greater than for any other woman I ever saw; when absent from her I was extremeiy miserable. This at- tachment, for many months previous to the death of my wife, disturbed ail tranquillity of mind* and drove me almost to madness; it tormented me by day, and made me sleepless at night. It was the desire of enjoying the society of Maria Moritz, and of marry- ing her, that induced me thus wickedly and feloniously to take the life of my wife at the time I did ; and her confinement seemed to me to be the favor- ed hour of destroying her witheut suspicion. I often proposed to Maria that we should elope together from this coun- try, and that i would then marry her ; but she refused to leave the neighbor- hood where she then resided, and I became satisfied I could not marry her so lono- as my wife was alive ; and while in this unfortunate state of mind; I conceived the horrid idea of taking her life by poison. I feel it also tb be a duty charged upon me, by the great solemnity of my present situation, to state, before my approaching death, that up to the twen- ty-first day of May, 1836, in the afternoon of this day, the three gentlemen who have been my zealous, earnest and deeply interested counsel^ to wit: Anson V. Parsons-, Robert Fleming, ar.d Wm. Cox Ellis, have all of them individually been earnestly instructed by me upon hi! occasions, in an implicit and unquestioned belief in my entire ignorance and innocence of this wicked and cruel deed of blood. My defence, I have reason to believe, was conducted under this impres- sion by my counsel, and, therefore, I presume, it was made with greater zeal and earnestness, than commonly occurs in similar cases. 1 think it proper and necessary to state this matter as a justification for my counsel in the public opinion, in reference to their gieat ekertions in my defence; and in reference to their steadiest kindness to me since my conviction and sentence. What I have said in relation to my counsel in this particular-, it is alsd among the duties of my closing life to repeat in reference to my spiritual advisers, the Rev. Henry Lenhart, Rev. Isaac Stratton, Rev. John Thotousi Rev. Thomas Tanneyhill, and also of Jacob Rothrock, Esq. and Mr. Wnn Wilson and others, that 1 have constantly impressed upon them as perfect and sincere a belief in my absolute innocence; as it was in my power to effect. 188 1 have to all persons, since my arrest, denied my guilt. I have, at longth, finder great and overwhelming mental suffering, deemed it to be my duty, iu the presence of all men, and before the awful judgment of my Heavenly Father, before whom I am shortly to appear, to make this public confession. Before I go hence, I wish also to say, that as I have offended deeply against the laws of both God and man, so also there may be those who have done wrongs to me; as I hope for my oy/n pardon, forgiveness and redemp- tion through the mediation of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, upon a free forgiveness to all, I here also declare that I cherish no feeling of bitterness nor malice towards any man, and I beseech the forgiveness of those against whom I may have offended. I wish also tQ state further as one of my last duties, that I have been treated with great and constant kindness by Major Charles Low, the Coro- ner, by Jacob Rotkrock, Esq, the keeper of the prison under Major Low, by Thomas W. Lloyd, Esq, the Sheriff of the county, and by Mr. John Bradin, the keeper ofthe prison under him. To all these men, to my coun- sel, to my excellent spiritual advisers, to the Coroner, Sheriff and keepers of the prison, I tender my sincere thanks. In reference to the religious services of many excellent christians who have visited me, instructed me in the best of all human knowledge, and who have in my cell by my side, so constantly prayed to God for my pardon and forgiveness, I am under obligations which 1 cannot express. Among these, most distinguished of all, is tho Rev. Henry Lmhart, whose unceasing devotion and kindness to me I am b.ound particularly to mention. his JOHN X EARLS. mark. This Confession made the day and year first above written; on the eve- ning ofthe same day signed'and deliyered inoqr presence. H. LENHART, THOS. W. LLOYD, JOHN BRADIN, A. V. PARSONS, ROBERT FLEMING, W, COX ELLIS. %* The foregoing is the entire Confession of JOHN EARLS, as mac'o j!o his late counsel, in refation to the "most foul, strange, and unnatural" ;nurder for which he had been convicted, and was then under sentence of death; the original manuscript of which is now in the hands ofthe Reporters. As many exaggerated rumors have prevailed in various sections of the country, since his conviction, relative to his participation in other crimes— and m the commission of other murders—it may not, perhaps', be amiss to remark, in this place, that, when questioned, he pertinaciously denied that he had ever taken the life of a fellow being, except in the horrid instance now disclosed, and for which he was about to atone with his life. He had been guilty of other offences against the laws ; but had never before stained lor. hands with human blood, /lx^V/'aci -•-^■..v,^.1r•Jt^H., ..-;:v;.t;^i5^vw!tt;' S'fe'''^ £CC;r ' ftiXr X • i - ■!' X x^xx'-;^-; Vi:>^-xX;-?;KX.:,v-;^- '■♦■-r.r.irji*' ■ iiiTo.fjni*;'-i.'