sQCl-P V TRIALyOF c MRS. HANNAH KINNEY II \ FOR THE ALLEGED MURDER OF HER HUSBAND, GEORGE T. KINNEY, BY POISON. *& 8EF0RE THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, Judges SHAW, PUTNAM, and WILDE, Present; SITTING AT BOSTON, FROM DEC. 21st TO DEC. 26th, WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, AND THE CHARGE OF THE .-> CHIEF JUSTICE FULLY REPORTED. COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION: J. T. AUSTIN, Attorney General, and S. D. PARKER, Commonwealth's Attorney. FOR THE PRISONER: FRANKLIN DEXTER AND GEORGE T. CURTIS. JL"** BY A MEMBER OF THE BAR. %f. jiy BOSTON: TIMES AND NOTION OFFICE, NO. 5 STATE STREET. '■f, 1840. jr. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1840, by George Roberts, In the Clerk's office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. W Kss-t \SHo •- • "*-V •),.I % x\ TRIAL OF MRS. HANNAH KINNEY FOR THE MURDER OF HER HUSBAND BY ADMINISTERING POISON. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Monday Morning, Dec. 21,9 o'clock. 1 The Court came in at 20 minutes after 9, the prisoner having been placed in the dock, pre- vious to the opening of the Court room, which was densely filled, as soon as admission was per- mitted. Chief Justice Shaw and Justices Put- nam and Wilde were present. Judge Dewey was not on the Bench. The law requires a full Court in a capital trial, which consists of a ma- jority of the Judges, of which there are four. James T. Austin, (the Attorney General) and S. D. Parker, Commonwealth's Attorney for Suf- folk, appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs Franklin Dexter and George T. Curtis for the prisoner. The prisoner was informed that she had a right to challenge twenty j urors, without cause, and the Clerk proceeded to call the J urors alphabeti cally, saying to each juror as called, " prisoner look upon the juror, juror look upon the priso- ner." Mr Curtis remained beside the prisoner while the jury were empannelled. She appear- ed to scrutinize each iritiividual, with care, and evinced much composure, until the jury were full, when she seemed overcome with the effort, and shed tears. Her appearance is certainly very prepossessing, and her face beautiful. During the examination of the witnesses, her attention to every word they uttered (particularly Dr Stor- er) was intense. EMPANNELLING THE JURY. Charles Arnold was next called and not ob- jected to by the prisouer. The Attorney Gener- al required him to be sworn to make true an- swers. The Chief Justice here stated the grounds upon which the jury would be empannelled, and referred to the Statute for testing the impartial- ity of the juror, as to his bias or prejudice, and his entire indifference, in the cause. He then asked Mr. Arnold if he had formed any opin- ion, or any bias ? Juror. I have not. James M. Barnard. No objection. Being sworn as to his bias, says he has none, and ia sworn. Job F. Bailey. Mrs. Kinney—I challenge him. Set aside. Sewall Barker. Sworn to answer by request of prisoner. Says he has no bias, and is sworn. George W. Bazin, sworn to make true answers, and says he has no bias, and is sworn in chief. James Blake, says he is sensible of no bias, and is sworn. Constant F. Benson, not objected to, says he stands indifferent, is challenged and set aside. Otis Brigham, says he has formed no opinion. Is challenged and set aside. John E. Billings sworn to make true answers, and says he has formed an opinion. Charles Brown has formed no opinion, and is sworn in chief. Abraham W. Blanchard, stands indifferent and is sworn in chief. Franklin F. Blood, questioned and sworn in chief. Francis Bundy has formed an opinion, and is set aside. George Callender says he has heretofore formed an opinion, but is conscious of no bias now. The court, on consultation, set him aside. Caleb Coburn thinks he has expressed an opinion, but has no bias now. Set aside. Francis Codman has no bias and is sworn in 'chief. Joshua Crane cannot say that he has not ex- pressed an opinion. He has read what has been published in print, but is sensible of no bias, except from that circumstance. On consultation by the Court, set aside. Josiah JV. Daniel, stands indifferent and is sworn. Samuel C. Demerest cannot say that he has not formed an opinion. It is almost impossible not to h^ive done so after reading the newspa pers. On consultation is set aside by the Court. Nathaniel G. Elliot has no opinion, and is sworn in chief. Elisha Faxon has no bias, and is sworn. The jury were full. The empannelling occupied but 40 minutes. The Chiei Justice said that it must not be understood that the Court had pas- sed upon all the answers of the Jurors. Several of the answers were of a doubtful character, but as there was a sufficient number of Jurors with- out these, they were passed. The Clerk read the indictment, charging the prisoner with poisoning her husband, George T Kinney, in August last with malice afore- thought, by mixing arsenic in drink prepared for said George, with intent to murder him. The indictment set forth that the arsenic was mixed in herb tea prepared for the deceased, who was sick, which he drank on the 9th of August, and died on the 15th. [The death ac- tually took place on the 9th. The indictment alleged the farthest day, from matter of form.] The Jurors were then called, as empannelled, consisting of— Abraham W. Blanchard, Foreman, (appointed by the Court) Charles Arnold, James M. Bar- nard, Sewell Barker, Geo. W. Bazin, James Blake, Charles Brown, Franklin F. Blood, Fran- cis Codman, Josiah W. Daniel, Nathaniel G. Elliot, Elisha Faxon. Samuel D. Parker, Esq. Attorney of the Commonwealth, for Suffolk, then opened the case for the Government. Gentlemen of the Jury:— The Attorney General has requested me on this solemn occasion to give him such assistance as I may be able to do, in the discharge of those appropriate duties required by law in capital cases, particularly of its highest officer ; duties, the most important and painful that can be as- signed to any one in judicial tribunals. No man can be engaged in more affecting or appalling of- ficial acts, than in commencing, pursuing and pressing investigations, in which the ultimate safety of all men is involved, and which are es- pecially designed to terminate, as in this case, in the deliverance or destruction of a human being, placed in jeopardy under the most distressing accusation. The utmost care and caution in such proceedings are enjoined by the rules of law; and every measure, suggested by the strictest regard for justice, and the most laudable love of mercy, is taken, to remove prejudice, to preserve impartiality, and to secure the attainment of truth. In this interesting and awful business we are now here engaged; and I hope that all who are to take part in this most serious trial,— counsel, witnesses, judges and jurors,—mav conscientiously feel the weight of that great re- sponsibility, which, without our seeking, has been cast upon all of us at this time, and in this place, by the laws of our country. It is my very unpleasant, yet my official task, under the request 1 have mentioned, to open this important and interesting case before the hon- orable Court who here preside over our proceed- ings, and before you, gentlemen, who are now engaged by the solemn sanctions of your oaths and the obligations of conscience, in the sight of God and of your fellow citizens, to do justice and right between the Commonwealth and the unhappy prisoner you have in charge. It is not, on my part, any affectation of sensibility to de- clare, that I feel oppressed, not only by the awfui consequences to which this trial may lead, but by the numerous difficulties in it which are to be surmounted; difficulties now very com- mon in all capital cases in the present agitated state of public opinion in relation to the punish- ment by death ;—difficulties, much increased, when the atrocious crime imputed to the prison- er is alleged to have been committed by that subtle and generally invisible but most tremen dous agent, the most detested of all means of homicide, secret PoisoN : difficulties, whieh also become yet more formidable, when the horrible charge is made against a woman, usually the most amiable and innocent part of human nature. Whenever in any case, the life of a human being, the gift of God, and one of the most precious of his grants, is by the laws of the land demand- ed as the forfeit of an act alleged to have been done in violation of law, the minds of men, be- fore they allow the highest punishment to be exacted, require what, in the acknowledged ob- scurity which usually covers personal motives and conceals criminal actions, cannot always be obtained, unequivocal proof, which excludes all reasonable doubt of that particular act having been done, by the party accused. The terrible consequences of a possible mis- take in making up a judgment from human testimony, and circumstantial evidence, have often inclined jurors in capital cases to acquit, when, as reasonable men out of court, acting upon the common presumption and faith which govern mankind in ordinary occurrences of life, they believed the accused to be guilty, and would have returned a corresponding verdict in the trial, if the punishment which was to follow such verdict were less fatal. In the course of centuries, it is supposed a few such lamentable mistakes have been made by juries; and the records of them with all their appalling consequences are usually cited by prisoners' counsel in cases depending on cir- cumstantial testimony: and yet the evidence of those fatal results being unjust has sometimes rested on no better foundation, than the wholly uncorroborated and often suspicious confession of some hardened and convicted felon at the gallows, who disregarded truth all his life time, and would not have been received as a compe- tent witness concerning the most trifling matter in any court of judicature. But the danger of such painful errors has long since passed away, for so tender in cases of homicide have modern tribunals grown, and es- pecially in this country, that juries are now strongly impressed with lively sympathies for the living and interesting beings who stand trembling before them, for relief or for deeper woe ; and are so much alarmed by the loud and solemn predictions of the awful and irreparable "consequences of an unfavorable error of judg- ment, that they at the present day are apt to seek, not so eagerly for indications of guilt, as for reasons of acquittal, by which they may escape the upbraidings of their conscience, while they yield to the grateful feelings of compassion. 5 The invisible dead are soon forgotten; no warm sympathies arise out of the cold, neglected grave ; the senseless, unseen, absent, defunct, mould- ering body excites no commiseration : the living, breathing, palpitating flesh and blood, full of tremor and anxiety, which stand in danger be- fore our eyes, engage and absorb all our sensi- bility. When too, that flesh and blood are ar- rayed in the form of a full grown woman, dis- tinguished for personal beauty, extraordinary talents, uncommon accomplishments, and of re- spectable rank in society, there is danger on the other side, that those sympathies for the living may prevail over the love of truth, may oblite- rate justice to the dead, and sway men to the side of mercy which may be unmerited, and to a decision, which, under the same proof, might have been the reverse of favorable, were a man on trial. Recent experience has shown how difficult, if not impossible, it has been to obtajn a verdict of condemnation, in cases of alleged murders by secret poison, when females have been the parties accused, and men were the per- sons murdered. I need not mention the cases of Lucretia Chapman, Eliza Norton, and Phebe Ann Floor. There are some who think it was the SEX, ONLY, of those defendants, which saved them from the punishment of the law. Yet all must acknowledge that justice, like the great Author, should be no respecter of persons; it should regard neither sex nor age, but only law and truth. By our State Constitution, the fountain of mercy is located and openod elsewhere than in the jury room, and is not allowed to flow, even through the clemency of the Supreme Ex- ecutive, in any case until after conviction. It has been well said, that mercy is mitigated punishment, not a denial of justice: and it is clear, that the protection of human life upon a large scale, and therefore the mostcomprehensive com- passion for human beings, requires that all mur- derers should be punished, for there can be no se- curity for the lives of mankind, if there can be no punishment for murderers and assassins. No one therefore has ever been engaged in a trial for homicide, more especially in one resem- bling the present, who has not seen and felt that there are difficulties, prejudices, sympathies,anx- ieties and embarrassments to be overcome: diffi- culties on both sides; embarrassments in the feelings, and difficulties in the proof. Mankind are naturally horror-struck by a cruel and atro- cious act of domestic perfidy; indignation, exe- cration, and an instinctive desire of vengeance combine to endanger and overwhelm the accus- ed, and sometimes to paralyse even -a well grounded defence. On the other side, when time has obliterated first impressions, when the grave conceals from sight the murdered victim, when nothing is beheld but a living, trembling, anxious, beautiful, talented and unfortunate wo- man standing before us, for life or lor death, ap- pealing to, and striking all the merciful chords of our hearts, then all our sympathies cluster a- round her, our desires rush to her relief; and law and justice, truth and duty are in danger of being disregarded. If moreover the homicide is alleged to have been perpetrated by secret poi- son, the required proof also presents difficulties as great and numerous as those arising from the feelings. The offence is easily committed: but the guilt of the accused is rarely capable of being clearly or satisfactorily established. The instru- ment of death is not manifest like a sword, pistol or dagger; but generally invisible, prepared in secret, disguised and administered in an unsus- pected form, in food or medicine, presented by hands beloved, making no open ghastly gash, or bleeding wound,traced by no gushing of out-pour ed blood, but operating out of sight of all men, and in the absence frequently of the very murderer, and sometimes receiving additional vigor and fatal power in the common means taken for re- lief against the pains of the first attack. There is seldom an accomplice, who might turn State's evidence. The felonious design is formed in se- cret, and the murderous secret is commonly con- fined to the guilty bosom in which it had its fa- tal birth; no suspicion of poison existing,its effects are often mistaken for symptoms of cholera and other natural diseases; and the horrid truth is seldom discovered but by a post mortem exami- nation, and difficult and often doubtful chemical processes: and so many and perplexing are the embarrassments in these trials arising from the required certainty in the proof which Courts and juries demand, that the imputed guilt is seldom made clearly manifest, but by those apparently accidental means, those unguarded circumstanc- es, those overstrained, officious, workings and efforts of a guilty, troubled, sin-stung mind to screen its crime, too great to be confined within the conscious breast, from the public eye, which generally betray the criminal to human view, aad are, for wise purposes duobtless, the inter- ventions of an overruling Providence. With these difficulties fully foreseen, and oth- ers also which need not be mentioned, the great- est and most unaffected anxiety therefore, is nat- urally felt by all who are obliged by official sta- tion to engage adversely to the prisoner in such solemn and painful investigations as the present, lest on the one side an irreparable and most hor- rible mistake should occur in inflicting a cruel homicide upon an innocent person through the forms of law; or, on the other side, a judicial tri- bunal should permit a culprit, guilty of the most atrocious of all crimes, to be set at liberty for a repetition of the guilt of destroying human be- ings, and for the encouragement of other mali- cious persons in like murderous cases to offend. We are in danger in such cases of pressing the evidence too much, or too little; in one case, in- juring, though unintentionally, a most unfortu- nate woman in the hour of her greatest distress and peril ; or, in the other case, leaving undone what the Commonwealth and the necessary pro- tection of human life require of us for the punish- ment of crime, and the safety of society. We sincerely wish in this emergency to discharge only our duty fairly, and maintain nothing but the truth of the case, that you may on your part do what justice, and your solemn oaths, and the laws of the Commonwealth require at your hands. Your oath, gentlemen, contains the definition, and is the guide of your duty. In the sight of 6 God and man, you are to give a true verdict in this trial between the Commonwealth and the prisoner according to the evidence. The humane maxims of the law clothe this prisoner like all others in the very outset, with an entire pre- sumption of innocence; they cover her with a legal panoply which is to protect and save her, until it be penetrated and destroyed by the evi- dence of her guilt. It may not therefore be im- proper for a moment to consider what, under such a charge, that evidence should be, what its nature, and what intelligent men should expect in a case like the present. Evidence is direct and positive, or circumstan- tial and presumptive. It would certainly be un- reasonable to expect crimes, especially those of deep atrocity, to be often proved by direct and positive proof. Innocent acts are done before witnesses; but crimes are disreputable, dark and dangerous. Culprits commonly practice so much secresy, that much sagacity and great efforts are necessary to detect them. Mankind are obliged to rely much on circumstantial and presumptive evidence on many important occasions, and es- pecially for the conviction of criminals. In cap- ital trials mistakes are very rare on the side of punishment, but very common on the merciful side. If it is better that a hundred guilty escape than that one innocent person be punished, that consummation is attained. In point of fact, from the imperfection of human tribunals, uncertainty of human testimony, the humane presumptions of original innocence, and the compassionate feelings of juries, instead of a hundred, thou- sands, nay, tens of thousands, of guilty per- sons have been acquitted, for one innocent man man that has been punished. When, therefore, circumstantial evidence does convince a jury, there should be no unwillingness or refusal on their part to declare the truth, because positive and direct proof is absent. Most especially how very unreasonable it would be to expect direct, clear, full, positive evidence in any case of se- cret poison ! But even positive testimony, if required, may be less satisfactory in many cases than a train of concurrent circumstances pro- gressing in a path of light to the full truth; for eye witnesses may be false, may be bribed, may be malicious, may be mistaken: their minds may be weak, their morals bad, their veracity ques- tionable. A learned American Judge, presiding in a case of poisoning, has estimated the comparative value of these two species of evidence, and I beg leave to ask your attention to his judicious re- marks. (See Lucretia Chapman's trial, paee 394.) B Also, Sir Francis Buller, one of the most able and learned English Judges, also in a trial for murder by poison, expresses similar opinions.— (See Capt. Donnellon's trial, page 159/) There are defects and advantages in each of these kinds of evidence; and I have directed your attention to them because, in the present case, both kinds will be offered to you in support of this indictment. Of some of the allegations in it the evidence will be express and direct; of other parts the proof will be circumstantial and presumptive; and we admit that the whole must be so satisfactory and convincing to your under- standing as to remove all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner. Moral certainty only is required, not the certainty of mathematical demonstration ; but if reasonable doubts remain, the law discharges her. The Attorney General,who attended the Grand Jury and who alone has conversed with the wit nesses, has drawn this indictment in so specific a manner, both in the form and substance of the accusation, that a general narrative of the facts we expect to prove seems almost unnecessary. The death of Mr. Kinney took place on Sun- day, the ninth day of August. Events the week before and week after will become material. The record and issue in this case present the following questions for your decision, and when you have satisfactorily answered them, you will find your duty will have been finished. 1. Did George T. Kinney die in consequence of being poisoned ? 2. Was it a case of suicide ? 3. Did the prisoner administer that poison, or did some one else ? 4. If the prisoner administered the poison,was it administered feloniously or by accident? By presenting this accusation the Grand Jury have placed on us the very disagreeable and painful task of offering and urging before you all the evidence ws could obtain, shewing and tending to prove that Mr Kinney was poisoned; that he did not commit suicide ; that the poison was disguised and given to him by his wife, who is now on trial for that act; and that it was ad ministered with aforethought malice, and not by accident. If after an honest diseharge of our duty, the testimony is not strong and conclusive enough to satisfy this human tribunal of her guilt, the presumption of her innocence here must stand, and she must be acquitted, and dis- charged from the custody of the law; and if nevertheless she be actually guilty of the detest- able crime imputed to her by the grand inquest^ her punishment must be left to that Omniscient Being, who knoweth the secrets of all hearts, from whom nothing is hid, and who is a God of truth and justice as well as of mercy. On the twenty-sixth day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, the late George T. Kinney was married in this city, by the Rev. G. W. Blagden, to Mrs Hannah Free- man, the prisoner at the bar. He had never been married before, and if I am rightly inform- ed, he was five years younger than she was.— The lady had been married twice before, and had children by her first husband, but none by either of the other two. In August last they lived in Ballard place, Bromfield street, in Bos- ton. On the 9th day of that month, he died in much pain and distress, after a short illness.— He had a few days before consulted a person who called himself a physician, and took some medicine on two occasions in the form of a pill delivered to him by that person. His illness did not confine him to the house. The ingredients of that medicine will be proved to you, and it will be satisfactorily proved there was no arsenic 7 in it; and also that the pills and its ingredients would not produce the symptoms and effects which preceded his death, nor endanger his life. On Saturday, the 8th day of August, in the forenoon, he became so unwell as to retire to his chamber, and he grew worse in the after- noon and evening. A male friend and neigh- bor was called in to see and watch with him, and was sent out for a physician in the course of the night. Before he weut and before the physician came, Mr Kinney wanted some drink, having a burning thirst, and the prisoner about midnight left the chamber and went below stairs while the rest of the family were in bed in the chambers ; and after being absent some time, she brought up from the kitchen a pint bowl of sage tea, a beverage which was first recom- mended not by her, but his friend, and placed it on the bureau ; and then she immediately threw herself down on the bed, complaining of being fatigued. Mr Kinney requested her before she went down to make the tea, not to sweeten it. Being impatient for it, after she came back, he wanted it to be given to him, while it was so hot it could not be drunk. His friend, Mr Goodwin, tasted it once or twice to ascertain if it was cool enough, taking about a teaspoonful each time, and he then very distinctly perceived that it was quite sweet. He held the bowl in one hand, and a lamp in the other, over Mr K., while Mr Kin- ney was drinking the tea with great eagerness, but by little at a time, it was so hot, and he saw a whitish sediment rolling at the bottom, which the witness will deseribe very accurately as he saw it. Very soon after drinking this tea, Mr Kinney grew much worse, and the physician came, and not suspecting arsenic had been taken thought the symptoms exhibited were those of Asiatic cholera. About ten of the clock next morning, Sunday, the 9th, Mr K. died sitting in a chair, with his feet upon the edge of the bed. The gentleman who tasted the sage tea, after watching all night, retired about day-light and went home to bed, but could not get to sleep, was affected with nausea, disposition to vomit, restlessness, uneasiness at the stomach, and be- lieves all these consequences were produced by the small quantity of the tea he took. The doctor who came to Mr. K. a little after midnight of Saturday was Dr. D. H. Storer,who was not the family physician, but was the first one the messenger could find. Mrs. Kinney made afterwards a strange apology to Dr. Snow on this subject. , I shall not attempt to sketch the medical testi- mony to you, as I have never heard it, and the eminent physicians will give it to you in person in an intelligent, very minute and very correct manner. But it may be useful to describe to you the now well known effects of white arsenic, after it is taken into the human body in quanti- ties of ten grains or more. Nausea and faintness are experienced, which are soon succeeded by a burning pain in the stomach and obstinate vom- iting. The matter discharged exhibits a yellow- ish green, and after some time is tinged with blood. A sensation of dryness, heat and tight- ness is experienced in the throat, with unextin- guishable thirst. The voice is hoarse, and artic- ulation of words difficult. Diarrhoea sets in, with irritation. The abdomen is tense and pain- ful, and the irritation extends to the urinary passage, accompanied by a pain in the bladder and swelling and gangrene in the genital organs. The heart flutters, the pulse is small, the surface cold, the extremities livid, the countenance col- lapsed, atnd the tongue and mouth furred. These are at the present day well ascertained to be the common consequences of arsenical pois on in the human system. During the present century learned men have devoted much time to Toxicology, and their knowledge is extensive and accurate, and has often been relied upon with entire confidence in courts of justice. You will have such scientific witnesses before you, and this part of the case will be made very clear. To the inquiries of Dr. Storer, when he first arrived, Mrs. Kinney gave the answers, and so far as proper or recollected by the witness, they will be detailed to you. She mentioned the fact of his taking the pills, exhibited some of the same kind, asked Dr. S. to examine them, and inquired if they would produce vomiting and the other symptoms then exhibited by her husband. Dr. S. broke one of the pills open, tasted it, as- certained its ingredients, and thought it would not produce the vomiting, collapse, and general symptoms of the patient. Dr. S. prescribed mustard poultices to the pit of the stomach and to the feet, forty drops of laudanum, and an opi- ate injection, and departed. He was called again four or five hours afterwards, being then about six o'clock Sunday morning. Mr. Kinney was much worse ; such effects as I have described as the consequences of arsenic had all along been very manifest, but poison not being suspected, he was supposed to have the Asiatic Cholera, He suffered excessive pain, and died between ten and eleven of the clock of that Sunday forenoon. Dr. Storer saw nothing extraordinary in the wife's conduct during all the time before her husband died, with the single exception that she said she could not give him the opiate injection. Dr. Bigelow was called in, about half an hour before Mr. Kinney died. On the same day, Dr. Storer told the prisoner it was desirable ber husband's body should be exam- ined ; she made no objection to the post-mortem examination, and that examination took place on that same Sunday afternoon. The manner, progress, discoveries and results of the exam- ination, will be very explicitly and minutely detailed in the evidence of the learned chemists and doctors who will be called as witnesses.— Arsenic was clearly developed. They did not tell Mrs. Kinney so then; but on Monday or Tuesday after Mr. K's decease, she sent for Dr. Storer and said she wished to unbosom her- self to him, and had an hour's conversation, I must say a most extraordinary one, giving a long history of her acquaintance with Mr. Kin- ney, and finally asked the doctor for a certifi- cate that he died of Cholera. There are many very extraordinary passages in that conversation, and your critical attention will be called to it.— Though Dr. S. had not suggested the idea to her 8 that her husband had been poisoned, and does not know that any one else had suggested it to her, she told him at that time that there were a great many stories about, and, among the rest, that she had poisoned Mr. Kinney. She then said the people at the funeral kept pointing her out, and saying, '■there she is,—there is the woman who poisoned her husband.' She ex- pressed no grief, shed no tear. She wished the certificate of the doctor, as she said, in con- sequence of the reports, and as she was going, as she said, to visit his friends. Not getting a certificate, she afterwards in a day or two sent Miss Collins to Dr. Storer for one, but he of course, gave none. On the next Sunday morn- ing, the 16th of August, a week after Mr. K's death, Dr. Storer and Dr. J. B. S. Jackson call- ed on her, and reported to her, for the first time, that arsenic undoubtedly and certainly was the cause of his death. She then shed no tears, expressed no surprise, shew no emotion : only said, INDEED ! Dr. Storer then asked her if she thought he had taken it himself? She said, 'No, George would never have taken it himself.' After a few minutes the doctors left her. Her subsequent conversations on that Sunday morning are very remarkable. The contents of Mr Kinney's stomach were analysed by Dr Martin Gay; the post-mortem examination was made by Drs. Bigelow, Storer, and J. B. S. Jackson. Further accounts of the last hours of Mr Kin- ney, and of his symptoms and sufferings will be given to you by William F. Goodwin, Mary T. Smith, Lucretia Bears, and Elmira W. Collins; and Miss Collins will also relate to you many particulars in the conversations and conduct of the prisoner before and after the death of Mr Kinney, and during the two last days of his life ; conduct and conversations, from which I think you will draw most important inferences in the close of this interesting trial, when they are con- sidered in connexion with a great many other parts of the testimony. Much of the circum- stantial evidence of her guilt will be derived from those sources Mrs Kinney had living with her a daughter named Dorcas Freeman, about twelve years old. On Wednesday after Mr K's death, she was sent to Vermont. On Thursday morn- ing, the next day, some unusual occurrences took place before and at breaktast in Mrs. Kin- ney's house. They will be related to you by Hannah Varney, and by Miss Collins. Mrs. Kinney, (a very unusual circumstance) herself, prepared some apple-sauce for that breakfast, and the persons who sat down to breakfast were Hannah Varney and her little son, Miss Collins and Mrs Kinney—Dorcas had been sent away. All of them were taken sick, and vomited not long after breakfast, except Mrs. Kinney, who also complained of being sick, but I believe no- body saw her vomit, or saw her sick in any way. Hannah Varney went after breakfast into the sink room, and lookinforsome pape rs to kindle the fire, found one piece of paper, among a par- cel of waste papers there, on which was written the word poison. That paper and these Thurs- day morning events, will open much discussion before you, and probably will be much comment. ed upon by the learned counsel who address you upon the evidence in the case. There were also cucumbers and warm bread on the breakfast table, as well as the apple-sauce, but the apple- sauce was the uncommon and now very suspici- ous article on that table. It was the Sunday morning, a week after Mr. Kinney's death, that Doctors Storer and Jack- son called and informed the prisoner of the ar- senic found in her husband's body. Her extra- ordinary conduct and conversations on that Sun- day after the Doctors left her, will be related in Miss Collin's testimony, who was her friend, and slept with her after Mr K's death, and had many other conversations with the prisoner, which it is supposed will much influence your decision upon several of the important questions now to be decided. On Friday of that week, that is, about twelve days after the funeral of Mr Kinney, who was buried with military honors on Monday, the tenth day of August, the prison- er left Boston, and wenttoThetford,'in Vermont by the way of Lowell. This was a tew days be- fore the Coroner's inquest was taken. The public journals teemed with allusions to Mr K.'s death, and the Coroners seemed compelled by public opinion to institute an inquest. The conduct and conversations of the prison- er at Thetford, her inconsistency and contradic- tions, we think, were very extraordinary, and we shall ask your careful attention to them when Mrs Harriet Hosford and Mrs. Frances Kend- rick are under examination. They will probably be relied upon by the Attorney General as indi- cations of guilt, and the learned eounsel for the prisoner will endeavor to explain them as not inconsistent with the hypothesis of her inno- cence. The absence of ordinary grief, the change in her conduct, conversations and repre- sentations of the character of Mr K.; her denial and subsequent charge of his having commit- ted suicide, and many othor things are truly as- tonishing. Upon the subject of the procurement of the arsenic, some evidence will be offered to you, but not perhaps of a very satisfactory na- ture. Upon the question whether Mr Kinney com- mitted suicide, we shall offer you the testimony of Mr John Barnes, his most intimate friend and foreman, who will detail many facts and circum- stances in Mr Kinney's conduct, conversation, arrangements, business, habits and character, which will have a tendency to disprove that sup- position or charge. Evidence upon this point will also come from various other sources, as well as the prisoner's own declarations. In the course of the trial many incidents and other circumstances will be proved, too numer- ous now to be recapitulated, but of sufficient im- portance to be put into the scale of evidence. Should you arrive at the conclusion that the ar- senic was administered to Mr Kinney by his wife, I believe it will not be contended on the other side that it was given to him through any accident or mistake. I have never yet beard that suggestion made. If administered by pre- meditated design and it caused his death, the of- 9 fence is Murder as charged in the indictment, and it cannot be reduced to Manslaughter or any lesser offence. As to the existence of any motive that could prompt so horrible an act of domestic atrocity, it is not necessary that the Government should be able to prove one. Motives to crime are fre- quently inscrutable. The secrets of the heart, when wickedness is contemplated, are seldom divulged. We can conjecture motives, but gen erally are unable to prove them. The tongue of the victim is sealed in death, and cannot tell us of motives. Perhaps in the course of the evi- dence, a motive will appear. You only are to be the final judges on this point, and I shall leave it wholly to your sagacity and intelligence to discover it. If the evidence satisfies you a foul murder has been committed, you certainly will not acquit the culprit, merely because you cannot see an adequate motive for the commis- sion of such a detestable crime. In the history of the parties and of their domestic feelings, a thousand extraneous circumstances, known only to them, the change of feelings, jealousies, re- sentments, hopes, fears, &c, produce results, the causes of which are incapable of judicial proof. I now, gentlemen, proceed to the evi- dence, and will call the witnesses before you. WITNESSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Dr. D. H. Storer. Resides in Winter street, and is a practising physician. He was called to see a patient by William F. Good- win on the 9th of August last, between 12 and 1 in the morning. Went to Ballard Place, near his residence, at the house of Mr George T. Kenney. Found him in bed very sick. Had never heard of him or his wife be- fore. She was there. He appeared to be in great suffering:, complaining of severe pain in the stom- ach and bowels. Pulse was small and feeble. The bowl at his bedside contained a pint and a half of liquid, thrown from his stomach, as witness was told. Asked Mrs Kinney how long he had been sick. She 'told me he had been unwell a week or ten days. Had lately had an attack of varioloid, but he had attended to his business until the noon of Saturday—the day before.— That he commenced vomiting on Saturday at 10 o'clk. in the forenoon, and he had been growing more sick since. She said she called at his store and walked home with him the day before. She said he had ap- plied to Dr. Harrington, during his sickness, in Endi- cott street, and shewed me pills or powders, si - said he had had of him. She asked me to examine hem, and state if they could have caused his sickness. I broke open the pills and said I supposed them to be cayenne pepper, very acid, but did not suppose they could have caused his sickness. I examined the powd- ers, and told her 1 supposed them to be Dover powders, a preparation of opium, and I told her I did not sup- pose the pills or powder could have caused the sickness. Mr Kinncv and Mr Gardiner were present, with my- self and Mrs K. no others present. He (Mr K.) said nothing. I prescribed a poultice, 40 drops of lauda- num lo be taken, and also an injection with 60 drops of laudanum. I staid 15 or 20 minutes, and went home. Was called again between 5 and 6 in the morning.— Went immediately, found him a great deal worse; ven thirsty, constantly asking for drink and vomiting a» soon as lie drank. The discharges thick, tinged slight- ly with bile ; I (bund the laudanum given by the mouth but not the injection. Mrs K. said she could not give it; I told her it was important, and I also prescribed a pill of calomel and opium. Remained about 15 or 20 minutes. Mr Goodwin was present. I went home and went to bed. Saw Mr Kinney again between iJand 10 that morning. Found him in great agony, and in a constant disposition to evacuation—saying he could not last long and must die soon if not relieved. The pill had been given,and he had ceased vomiting for an hour. The injection had not been given. While he was complaining, I look his wife aside and told her her husband's symptoms were very similar to those of the Asiatic Cholera in 1832, and I proposed to call in Dr Bigelow to see them with me. While I was conver- sing Mr Kinney looked up and asked me if I thought it was cholera, or is this cholera. I told him the symp- toms were certainly very similar. I went out; I met Dr Bigelow, and in five minutes he returned with me. Dr Jacob Bigelow. We found the patient removed from the vessel and sitting in a chair. We found him in a dying state. Thrown back in the chair, and his feet on the bed. Three or four quarts of liquid had passed from him. We prescribed nothing as he was past remedy and dying. Dr Bigelow agreed with me that it was a case of malignant cholera. The pulse was almost imperceptible. Appeared in a state ot collapse. We staid a few minutes and went out. I returned in about an hour. Found him in the position I left him.— He was dead; he died about a quarter of an hour after 1 left him, as I was told. The muscles of the legs were distinctly contracted. I called attention to it. I tho't it corroborated my opinion, that it was cholera. Saw Mrs. Kinney then, and told her it was very desirable there should be a post mortem examination I met Mr. Goodwin in the chamber with Mrs. Kinney. Mrs. Kinney said she had no objection except the natural feeling of all persons on such occasions. We examined the body at 4 P. M. in the room where he died ; myself, Dr. Jackson, and Dr. Bigelow. Dr. Jackson performed the operation ; It was done with care. In the stomach we found a large spot of blood diffused, ecchymosis. Dr. Jackson, the moment he observed it, suspected it was produced by some irritating poison. 1 hare no doubt myself, of the agency of that cause in the death, poison. I do not say that I had no doubt at that time. I was governed by Dr. Jackson's opinon. 1 have no doubt now, it was poison. We found a great deal of irritation in the lower intestines. This is an incident to the effects of poisoning generally. There was no fetid odor. The stomach was taken by Dr. Jackson. Did not see its contents emptied. Did not know what was done with the other intestines. We all desired to have the stomach examined. While Dr. Jackson was doing it. I went below to see Mrs. Kinney. Dr. Bigelow had gone. I went in and told her that many of the appearances were such as we had noticed in cases of cholera. I did not tell her he had died of poison. She said George had been unwell for several days, and he had suddenly died from some cause, as unknown probably to you, as it is to me. Don't remember anything further on that conversation. 1 then left the house. Dr. Jackson and myself returned within an hour, and requested a further examinaiion of the body. She asked what for, I told her that a portion of the aesaphagus had not been examined, and we wished an opportunity for further inspectiou. She was willing, made no objections. Dr. Jackson was below when 1 made the request. We then removed all the canal from the aesophagus to die anus, I mean all the bowels, from the mouth through the bodv. . . Dr. Jackson took them, and I saw them m his office, afterwards. Mr. Kinney was buried on Monday. On Tuesday I had a line from Mrs. Kinney for me to call, I went to ,ee her at her house, in the forenoon. No other person was present. She said she was desirious I should give 10 her a certificate that her husband died of cholera. She began by saying she wished to unbosom herself to me. She then gave a long history of her former loves. She said that lor the most part she and Mr. Kenny had lived happily to gether, that he was irritable but always rea- dy to acknoledge his faults. She said it was very un- pleasant to him fbr her to receive visitors from clergy- men. He did not like clergymen, and did not wish her to visit them. She said she had received a letter from a Mr Payson, which she had read to Mr Kinney, but could not satisfy him. She stated a great many things. Her conversa- tion was very incoherent. It endedby her request that I should give the certificate. Being asked the reason she gave—she said it was currently reported that she had poisoned her husband, and said I must be aware of the reports against ber.— Up to that time I had not said a word about poisoning lo her, nor had any one in my presence. She said there was a very large funeral and she was pointed out as a murderer. She was perfeotly calm and composed. No tears. She said that she intended to visit nis friends, where they were going before he was taken sick, and it was important to have the certificate to show them. I told her I was not satisfied as to the cause of his death, and could not give the certificate. On Thursday after, Miss Collins called for the certificate. I told her I was not satisfied as to the cause of his death and could not give it. Dr Jackson called on Mrs Kinney with me on the Sunday after his death at 8 o'elock. I then told her we had ascertained by chemical anal- sis, that arsenic was found in Mr Kinney's stomach, and that was undoubtedly the cause of his death.— She merely said, indeed! No grief. We were there about five minutes. That noon Miss Collins called with a request I would visit Mrs Kinney. I went in after church. She said she could not imag- ine how the arsenic was in the stomach. Her princi- pal object seemed to be to know who knew we had found arsenic. I told her Dr Martin Gay who had analised it, and also Dr. Hildreth knew it. She said she would rather have given the world than Dr Hildreth should have known it. I said, ' Mrs Kinney, it is possible your husband might have taken it himself." She said," No, George would never have done it." She said that Dr Hildreth was very inimical to her. He belonged to a religious society, and he and they were inimical to her and would glory in seeing her injured. Being asked his opinion as a Physician, of the'cause of the death, he says, " I have no doubt he died from arsenic. The poison being found in the stomach settled the question." Cross-examined. He saw the organs when removed, and the large ecchymosis, which was au inch or more in diameter. There was one smaller. The large one was a large brown spot, looking as if some substance had been applied there, which had not affected other parts of the stomach. The blood had passed out, was extravasated. This is the effect of poison, which we detect, but how caused we do not trace. This examination was entirely in the hands of Dr Jackson, and I relied on him. I think the stomach was not re- moved till I went below. Mr Dexter. Judging from what you yourself observed alone, would you infer that the death was from arsenic ? Ans. I saw no arsenic, but inferred it from learning that arsenic was found tbere; the results corresponded with the books. Mr Dexter. Would you have attributed the death to arsenic aside from what Dr Jackson told you? Ans. 1 cannot separate the question, I can only say that I have no doubt the death was from that cause. I should be very unwilling to say that he died of arsenic, if arsenic had not been found in the stomach. Do not know wheth- er there was any instrument for an injection when I ordered it. Nothing was said about the injection pipe. I think it likely that something was said about going to a,n apothecary's for a syringe, but it is so cemmon a thing I have the slightest recollection of it. After the first examination, Dr Charles T. Hildreth came into my office, with the Deacon of the Church. He asked mc if 1 had examined Mr Kinney He said he was glad of it. I returned in consequence of the conversation with him. This was at candlelight in the eve- ning. Mrs. Kinney was called, she came to the door, and showed me up stairs where the lady was. Did not see Mr. Goodwin taste the tea, that Mr. Kenney drank, the second time I called. Mr. G. said it was too hot, I think. I saw Mr K. drink the tea, and as he drank he vomited.— This did net strike me as extraordinary. I did not examine the vessel in which the tea was. Mr. Goodwin gave him the tea to drink. I was standing by the bed while he drank it. The chamber was in the third story. I think the tea was given immediately on its being brought up. There was nothing about it that attracted my at- tention—not the slightest. Mrs. Kinney said there was something very mysterious in her husband's conduct, the eve- ning before his death. This was after his death, at the first examination. She said a Dr. Bateh- elderhad visited him that evening, and they were left alone and the door fastened. She intimated that Mr. K. might be diseased, have the veneri- al, and asked me if it was customary for physi- cians to be locked up with their patients, ex- cept in such cases. I never heard of Dr. Bach- elder. No such one belongs to our Medical As- sociation. There are no appearances of the dis- ease (venereal) on the post mortem examina- tion. We did not examine with that reference. Did not examine the throat. No swelling of the bones or syphilitic symptoms. In reply to Mr. Austin, witness says that if arsenic were found in the stomach of the deceas- ed,!^ had no doubt that he died from that cause. There is a great variety of opinions as to the taste of white arsenic. Some say it has no taste and some say it has a sweet taste. Impossible to say how much could be dissolved in a pint of water. Depends on circumstances. Dr. J. B. S. Jackson, sworn. Is a physician and surgeon, resident in Boston. Was at the post mortem examination of deceased, with Drs. Storer, Bigelow, and a medical student and Mr' Goodwin. I performed the dissection. Was told it was a case of cholera, by Dr. Storer, and examined the body with reference to that dis- ease. On opening the stomach, I found a very remarkable appearance, which led me at once to suspect the presence of arsenic, and that the man died from its effects. The extravasation of 11 blood appeared in the inner coat of the stomach, giving a fine deep dark red, of uniform appear ance, well defined. One large spot three inches square, and two small ones. The appearance is called ecchymosis. I made the remark that I thought he must have died of poison. I found two little grains, very minute in the stomach. Ecchymosis is common in cases of death by poison. ■Do not know as to cholera. The contents of the stomach were poured into a bottle, and car- ried to my room, by Mr Tibbetts, the medical student, who was present. I examined the con- tents of the bottle in Dr Gay's room; Arsenic was detected. Is satisfied it was arsenic in the stomach. When we told Mrs Kinney that her husband had died of poison, she paused a mo ment and said, indeed. From the appearances, if 1 had not known that arsenic was found, I should have set it down that it might be the effect of poison. But should not be willing to say so without the detection of the arsenic.— With that fact I have no doubt the death was caused by arsenic. Cross examined. Describes the effects of poi- son, as before. The absence of fetid orflor, is an indication of a symptom of cholera. Without the fact of arsenic having been found I should not have atributed the death to arsenic. But if arsenic were found, and the morbid appearances as described, I should attribute it to arsenic. Question—Will finding the arsenic by chemi- cal process in the stomach of a dead man war- rant you to say that it was the cause of his death? May it not be introduced by the pro- cess ef making the test? Ans. Not by a skilful chemist. There was less redness in a portion of the intestines, the rectum, than is usual in fatal cases from arsenic There was nothing but the ecchymosis independent of the arsenic, that in- dicated the death was by poison. Ecchymosis is common to both cholera and poison. In answer to Mr. Dexter as to the quantity of arsenic, more or less affecting his opinion, wit- ness says I do not know that there is any medi- cal improbability of his having died of the cholera, although the arsenic was found in him. The Court here adjourned at 2, P. M. till half past 3. Monday Afternoon. The examination on the part of the government proceeded. Dr. Martin Gay—Is a practising physician in this city. On Sunday evening, August 9th, he received a bottle from Dr. Jackson, contain- ing the supposed contents of the stomach of the deceased. Made a chemical analysis, was care- ful to exclude {11 matter in the examination, in order to ascertain if it contained poison. He applied several tests, and separated a quantity of ars< nic, which he reduced to a metalic state. The witness described the usual tests of such examinations. As to the certainty of this test, Dr Gay said that he knew that it was arsenic, as thoroughly as the blacksmith knew he was hammering iron, and with more certainty. There is no other body, except arsenic, which when put through these processes will exhibit such results. In answer to the Attorney Gene- ral, " I know there was arsenic contained in the contents of that stomach as it came to me, there is no possibility of a doubt." As to the quantity he cannot tell. Cannot say that arsen- ic has any taste. It is usually described as sweet. Cross-examined. Arsenic is what is called a cumulative poison. If taken for a long time in small doses cannot say whether there would be an accumulation in the stomach. [This wit- ness exhibited great accuracy and skill in chem- istry ; and the result of his testimony was a certainty that the substance he detected in the contents of the stomach was arsenic, but how much in quantity did not appear. Dr Calvin Bachelder—Was not much ac- quainted wirh Mr George T. Kinney. He first saw him on Tuesday, when he came to him. He again saw him Saturday night. He saw him at Dr Harrington's office. Witness was then at- tending Dr H.'s shop on Endicott street, while he was absent. A lady called Saturday night at the office and wished me to go and see a Mr Kinney to whom I had given some medicine previous. I told her I did not know any such man. The lady I did not know then ; I now know it was the prisorier, Mrs Kinney. She described him to me, aud I then recollected the man. She said he was not so well as wheu I saw him before, and he wished me to come and see him. I went to the house in Bromfield st., with her. She showed him to me, and said 'there is the man, and you have given him medi- cine, and know for what.' It was the same man I saw on Tuesday. He had then called at Dr Harrington's office. He told me he had been afflicted with the venereal disease—that it had troubled him more than usual and he wished to get rid of it—I examined him and prescribed for him. The secondary symptoms were apparent, the first having passed away. I gave him five or six cathari «. pills—I then gave him a box of blue pills to ta.. e—there was no arsenic in the cathartic pills. Do not know who made them. The blue pills he knew the components of; mercury, &c. but no arsenic. At the house I asked him if he had taken the pills as I prescribed, and he said he had. He was on the bed undressed. Was alone. I was alone with him five minutes. The door was not locked by me nor any one to my know- ledge. Did not request Mrs. Kinnev to leave us alone, nor to prevent any one coming in. I asked Mrs. Kinney for the blue pills, and saw them • those that were left. The cathartic pills were taken Tuesday night. He said he had ta- ken some of the blue pills After examining him, I prescribed for what I supposed to be a case of cholera morbus. The remedy was of vegetable substances, the Dover pills, &c. but nothing containing arsenic. No secresy was observed or requested at this interview. Was there fifteen minutes. He appearea comfortable when I first went in, was worse soon after, vom- ited and then appeared more quiet. This was IS all that happened at that interview. Mrs Kin- ney waited on me down stairs and I promised to call again. I called Sunday morning. Found him dying. Shouldthink his disease was such as he describ- ed to me at the time he called on me. I judged so from his throat and other symptoms. Could not tell whether the primary symptoms had ex- isted within a year. Did not perceive any marks of varioloid upon him. That sometimes produce! sore throat. Should think he had had the sec- ondary symptoms of the disease upon him far a month or more, might have been for a year. Cross-examined.—Coming down stairs Mrs Kinney asked my opinion. I told her it was a case of cholera morbus, and I thought he would be better in a few hours. As I was going she asked me if I thought he would get well; she feared he would not. I told her iMhoughthe would. She replied she had lost a former hus- band and some other relatives in the same way. I told her if that was the case she had reason to fear. I meant that if she had seen friends die in that way, she had reason to fear in this case. The cathartic pills were made by Dr Harring- ton. Never called by any other name. Satur- day evening I gave him a bowel pill. This is a pill of my own manufacture composed of mucil- lage and Cayenne peper. The component parts of this pill were well known. Physiciars know the compound. I have never kept the pill par- ticularly secret. I was never asked the compo- sition of the pill and refused to tell since I have been in Boston. Never asked by Dr Harrington what it was composed of. Have no connexion with Dr Harrington, except the time I kept his shop. I gave the deceased no other medicine than I have described, except some drops of lau- danum. Never used any arsenic in medicine in my life. I feel confident of this. Never stated to any person that I had been in the habit of using it. Mrs Kinney spoke to Mr Kinney when she came into the room. I do not recol- lect what she said. Mr Kinney was to have called on me again in a few days, when I first prescribed for rum, but he did not. Dr Harring- ton was gone six or seven weeks from the 4th of July. The blue pill is made of part mercury in the crude state ; common quicksilver The mixing of the mercury in the blue pill, changes it chemically ; produces an oxide or protooxide. By Mr Parker. When I told Mrs K he had the cholera morbus, she said nothing. Express- ed no doubt of my ability to cure him. Witness has the blue pill and Dover powder, and also the bowell pill, made since, but of the same ingredi- ents. It warms the bowels, produces action and perspiration. In answer to a Juror, I inquired for the box of pills, because she said he was not so well, and I wished to be sure what he had taken. Mr Kinney paid me for the advice when he left me the first time. He told me he had been vomiting when I called to see him. IVilliam F. Goodwin. Was present at the death of Mr Kinney. Had kDjwn him three or four years. I first knew of his sickness on Sat- urday before his death. Was acquainted with him and his wife before (heir marriage. Saw Mrs Kinney on Saturdpy noon in Bromfield st. She said George was very sick, and asked me if I would go and see him. I went. Found him on the bed partly dressed, pantaloons on. No coat or vest. No one was in the room. I did not see his wife. He appeared sick and in dis tress. It was after one o'clock, Saturday. He said he thought he should be better and get out by night. I was with him about 10 minutes.— Did not see him again till about 9 o'clock that evening. Mrs Kinney's little daughter came with a request from her mother that I would come over. She came the first part of the evening. I told her I had an engagement till 9 o'clock. I went to an inquiry meeting, walked home with a lady, and went to Mr Kinney's between nine and ten. I remained in the parlor below, at Mrs Kinney's request, until nearly eleven. She said she had sent for me in case he should be worse, as there was no man in the house* Miss Collins was in the parlor. About eleven I went up in the chamber; found him on the bed. Re- mained twenty minutes, and went out at the re- quest of Mrs Kinney, on account of it being un- pleasant while he was on the stool. Mrs Kinney came down, and said Mr. Kinney wished me to go for a doctor, and wished to see me. I went up and Kinney said he wanted me to go for Dr. Ware. He said he was a great deal worse, and unless he got help he should not stand it much longer. I advised him to send for a doctor nearer. He replied he did not care who, if I got a good one. I then went to Dr. Lane ; was told he was unwell and did not go out. I then went to Dr. Storer and he went over with me. We went into the room together —Mr. and Mrs Kinney were the only persons there—it was between 12 and 1. He was in bed—I remained ten minutes. Went out to the apothecary's and got laudanum, prescribed by Dr. Storer. When I returned the Dr. had gone. The laudanum was administered partly by me and partly by her. Mrs Kinney laid down on the bed £at her husband's request. Complained of headache—Mr. Kinney complained of being thirsty. I remained till five o'clock in the morning. Toward the morning I proposed some tea, to relieve his thirst. Asked Mrs K. and she said there was no cold tea. He asked her to make some—he thought it would do him good. I said any herb tea, would be good.— She said she had some sage in the house, and 1 asked her to make that. She was lying on the bed then—got up—as she was going out he said Hannah don't sweeten it. She said well.— Was absent about twenty-five minutes, and came back with a pint bowl of tea. She sat it on the bureau—complained of headache, and laid down again. I found it too hot to drink— I tasted it awhile, stirring it with a spoon, to see if it was cool. I tasted it but once, but dipped the spoon in several times. In five minutes Mr. Kenney drank it She held the bowl. Then sat it on the bureau and laid down. In fifteen minutes he called for drink again. I gave it to him, and he drank the remainder. 1 had the bowl in one hand, and the light in the other. 1 13 saw in the bottom of the bowl a sediment of a light color, as he was drinking. It was white, and rolled as the bowl was turned up, and appeared to adhere to the bowl. He drank all the tea". Did not notice the bowl afterwards. Mr. Kinney said he could not live long unless he got help. I supposed it was cholera morbus 1 was so informed by Dr. Storer. Mrs. Kinney staid in the room all night. I did not sleep du- ring the night. Felt unwell before I went home, ar.d said I should be obliged to go home on that account. After I got home felt very sick; like vomit- itig. I grew worse and was very sick indeed. Did not vomit. After 9 o'clock I went over to Mr Kinney's, again toward ten o'clock. He was in the chair, did not speak. I remained till he died. There was a great change since I had left him. He looked death-like. When I saw him before, he expressed great anxiety to get relief. Said if he could relieve the sensation in his stomach he should be better. He was a hose and trunk manufacturer. A few days previous he told me his business was very good, he had got a good job. Was present at the examina- tion of the body. Mrs. Kinney had no objec- tion to the examination. I did not hear the con- versation of the Doctors. {Mr.Dexter. It can- not be evidence.) Did not notice any thing remarkable, in the examination of the body. Saw the stomach taken out and the contents put into a bottle. I got the bottle and rinced it out before the con- tents were put in. The contents of the stomach were first poured into a pitcher and then into the bottle. It was carried away by the Doctors. When I first saw Mr. Kinney, his wife said he had had the varioloid. She said she intended to visit Mr. Kinney's friends. She had been talk- ing about leaving the city for Vermont. She stated thisjto me about three days before his sickness. Said she expected to go alone. The family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. K. and her daughter, eleven or twelve years old. I do not recollect whether it was on Monday or Tuesday that I first heard the report that Mr. Kinney had been poisoned. Think it was Tuesday; am not certain. I got the bottle at my boarding house. Cross examined. Did not go to church on Sunday. Did not sit up the night before I watched with Mr. K. I saw Mr. Johonnet, on Sunday. Told him I had beei* unwell. I had no reason in my mind to be particularly atten- tive to the bowl in which the tea was. Do not recollect looking at it after it was set down on the bureau. I did not think of looking in the bowl again. When first brought up it was too hot to be drank. Dr. Storer was not there when the tea was given. At the examination before the Coroner, I do not recollect that I stated any thing as to the sediment in the bowl. My testi- mony was written down, before the Coroner.— I knew of Mrs. Kinney's intention to go out of town after her husband's death. 1 spoke for her passage and paid the fare. She was going to Thetford to see her husband's friends. She had made previous arrangements to go, be- fore her husband's death. She told me, after| his death she was going and went on Friday, twelve days after his death. Thetford is twenty five miles beyond Hanover, and the stage went there but twice a week; on other days must go by private conveyance. When I went out to get the laudnum, I was not told to get an injection pipe by Dr. Storer, or any one. Have been applied to by a great many persons respecting this affair. Dr. Hildreth nev- er spoke to me about it. Mr. Kinney was forty years of age. Did not break off my intima- cy with Mrs. Kinney after her husband's death. Have treated her the same as before. I first learned he was poisoned, by calling on Dr. Sto- rer, I had heard all the rumors previous but did not believe them. Tuesday, Dec. 22. The examination of John Barnes was resumed, the foreman of the deceased. Mr. Kinney had been unwell for some time before his death. Had com- plained ; was worse on the Saturday before his death. Witness saw him Sunday morning as he was fetting off the bed into the arm-chair. I advised im not to. He said he wanted to get some ease v h le he lived. He could not last long. They were his last words before he died. He died in almost half an hour after he got up. Appeared very weak. Good- win was present. Did not know of the deceased hav- ing the particular disease testified to by Dr. Bachelder. Had never discovered any melancholy temper in the deceased. He had been in pecuniary embarrass- ments, but took it very easy. He had a good job to do, previous to his death. Never heard him say he was tired of life. Cross Examined. Mr Avery furnished the stock and Mr Kinney acted a# Agent in making the hose.— There was also a contract between Kinney and French of Lowell to make hose. Kinney was to be paid cash. The contract with Avery was to furnish Kinney with leather whenever he got work. [Mr Dexter pressed this point of the examination with apparent interest.] Hannah Varney. [The witness spoke very low and was understood with difficulty.] Was not acquainted with Mr Kinney before his death. Knew his wife about three months before. Saw her about three weeks be- fore that event, at Mr Guild's boarding-house where I boarded. She requested me to call at Tier shop.—[She kept a milliners' shop in Bromfield street.) I went to the shop. She asked me if Mrs Guild was going to breakup house; said she, (Mrs K.,) was going into the country and wished me to come and keep house for her. I said I did not know but I could come. Went home and called again on Saturday at her shop. She said she was going into the country the next Wednes- day, and Mr Kinney was sick and she would like to have me come on Sunday, or early Monday, as she should have a great deal to do, to get ready. I went on Sunday to her house. When I arrived there, about 10 A. M., Mr Kinney was alive. He was in his chair. Did not speak before he died. Remained there till Thursday after his death. Went away then, returned on Friday and went away Saturday. Saw but little of Mrs Kinney and had but little conversation with her.— On Sunday I washed the dishes. Know nothing of die bowl that contained the sage tea. Wa-.hed the dishes that were brought out of the sick chamber. The fam- ily consisted ot Mrs Kinney and daughter, Miss Col- lins, myself and my little boy, at the time of Mr K.'s death. On Thursday morning after his death, I came down stairs rather late. On the breakfast table was set some flour and sala- ratus, to make bread. I made bread and got break- fast. When ready Mrs Kinney came home from mark- 14 et with some things; she spoke of some liver she had got and asked if I wanted some; I said no; she then asked me if I wanted some green apples cooked; I pre- pared the apples; do not recollect whether she or I put them on the fire; Mrs K. said she had no sugar, and wished me to go out and get some ; I did so; when I came back with the sugar tbey were sitting at the table; the apple sauce was on a shelf in the kitchen, I put some sugar in it out of a paper, and put it on the table. 1 was well that morning, before breakfast. [The wit- ness here complained of faintness, and the examination was suspended a few moments.] Resumed. After eating the breakfast, I felt as well as usual, until between 9 and 10,1 began to feel unwell, eat breakfast about 7 o'clock. After 10 Miss Collins came from the shop and said she felt dreadful; I told her I had felt so half an hour. She vomited; 1 soon did so myself twice; I then made some gruel a little af- ter 12, and felt better; towards night I was again affec- ted with vomiting; about 9 in the morning my son went out to a friend's; I remained till two or three that afternoon, then went to the friend's where my boy was. Found him sick; had been since he came there; I felt worse after I got there; I was very sick for an hour and a half, and thought I was going to die. Vomited twice, about 4 o'clock; felt distress and great drryness, thirst, and weakness of the whole system. While in the kitchen of Mrs Kinney, that morning collecting papers to kindle the fire, a blue paper wrapped up, marked poison, attracted her attention. Witness produces a small piece of blue wrapping pa- per an inch and a half wide and two or three long, which she says is a part of the wrapper, the word "poi- son" written on it. She preserved it at the time.— Found it in the sink room behind the door It lay on the door at the end of the sink. The other papers I picked up behind the door, separate. Witness did not recover for some days. Was sick on Saturday morning. Consulted Dr Buck. The child seemed well in two or three days. The apple sauce was in the sink room, the place in which I found the blue paper. The sink is the com- mon height from the floor. Never knew where the pa- per came from. Had not then heard any thing of the manner of .Mr Kinney's death. I kept the paper till I went to Mrs Thompson's in the afternoon. I there told of it. Do not know that Mrs Kinney knew that I had found the paper. I kept the paper until I went before the Coroner. On Thursday Mrs Kinney advised me to go to a physician. Cross Examined. Mrs Kinney told me on Friday, (after the death) that she should give up keeping house and go into the country. Thursday forenoon, after I comnlained, Mrs Kinney gave me some medicine.— Told me what it was. I described to Dr Buck what I had eat. Did not tell him I suspected any thing wrong or out of the way.— Did not show him the paper, or tell him any thing about it. No vegetables were used that morning at breakfast, but apples and cucumbers. Don't know what was done with the other vegetables. The milk I made the bread with waa sour, and it required a good deal of pearlash. It was perceptible in the bread.— Turned the color of it. The blue paper has the same general appearance as when she found it. The creases showed more plainly. When they took the gruel Mr. Kinney took some also. Witness's little boy eat the same we did at breakfast. Mrs. Kinney partook also of the same we did at the table. Mrs. Kinney was also sick the same day.— After I had been sick and my child, and after I had found the paper, I went back to Mrs. Kinney's on Friday. Dr. Buck gave me no prescription, but ad- vised me to be careful what I eat, particularly not to eat vegetables or apples. Saw nothing of the blue paper until I picked it up, after collecting the other ripers behind the door. I stopped and picked it up ai was passing to kindle the Are. Before the Coroner I stated that I had heard rumors of Mr Freeman's death by poison j (Mrs Kinney's for- mer husband). Cannot tell the reason why I told no one at the time I found the paper. I expect I thought it important, or I should not have kept it. I did not suspect any thing wrong in the house then. I did not take the paper out of my bandbox till after I went to Mr Pemberton's in the country. I showed it there. After that kept it in myjpocket book. There were waste papers on the shelves in the sink for the purpose of kindling. Some had fallen down, or was thrown behind the door. Some remained on the shelf. There were other articles and things there. It was a place where rubbish was kept. There were box- es, jars and earthen pots. Did not take particular no- tice what there was. Lucretia Beers,swom. The Foreman sug- gested a request that the witness would take off her bonnet to favor hearing the testimony. The Court gave no direction upon it. Lived in Mrs Kinney's house. On Saturday morn- ing saw Mr Kinney going up stairs. Saw him again Sunday morning, in the sick- chamber. When I went down I said to Mrs Kinney that her husband was very sick. She said yes, she did not think he would live half an hour. I asked if I could do any thing. She wished me to make some poultices. I did so.— Was gone twenty-five minutes. I went into his room with Miss Collins, to put the poultice on. He said I think they will not do much good, I think you are too late. Mrs Kinney asked if he would have them on, and he said yes. I think ue called for some drink and Mrs K. gave him some out of a tumbler. I went out again; when I returned he was in the chair. He said he should like to have something to relieve that faint spot. If he did not he should not last lonor. After his death I asked Mrs Kinney what he died of, cholera or cholera morbus. Mrs. Kinney said folks must be crazy, must be beside them- selves It was neither, it was the bowel com- plaint. She would have him opened and exam- ined by the doctors. This was on Thursday after his death. The day after the breakfast, I remarked a good deal of bread in the swill pail. I boarded in the other part of the house occupied by Mrs. Kinney. Was in there occasionally, assisted her. The Counsel declined any cross-examination. Chester Brigham. Saw Mr. Kinney on Sat- urday before his death, in his bed. Spoke of great pain, and that he could not stand it long if he did not get relief. I asked him what the matter was. He said he was confident that it was the cholera morbus I asked him if he had not been eating something to produce it. Said he had not. He had been very particular what he ate, for a week. He had been dieting a week. Mrs Kinney asked me to go for a doc- tor. She named Dr. Storer. I went, and re- turned with him a part of the way. I then went home. I next saw Mr Kinney on Sunday morn- ing. He was «n the bed. Mrs Kinney sent for me. I was requested by her to go to the apoth- ecary's and get some pills. I did, carried them to the house in a paper. Saw Mr. Kinney again 15 after this at 10 o'cloek. He was on the bed. I assisted him to get up in the chair. He was very- weak. We lifted his feet up at his request. I left before he died, about 10 o'- clock. Did not see him again. I was in the room once with Dr. Storer. Mrs. Kinney sent for me in the morning, and requested me to go for a nurse. Cross-examined. Went for Deacon Bachelder at Mrs Kinney's request. It was Sunday morning. The nurse I went for I suppose to be Mrs Bachelder, but am not positive. That was my understanding. Mr. and Mrs Bachelder, I understand, were friends of Mrs Kinney. Mrs. Harriet Bingham. Was not in the room when Mr. K. died Saw Mrs. Kinney on Sat- urday before he died. She told me her husband was sick, and kept vomiting and was faint, and Bhe did not know what to do for him, and asked me. I asked if she had a doctor, she said no.— This was 2 or 3 o'clock. I told her sage tea was very good. I had this conversation at the pump, near the sink room, I was in the adjoining part of the house. Saw her again in the afternoon. half past 5. She said George was worse. Again saw her at 8 o'clock at a grocery, in Brom- field street. She said George was worse, she feared he eould not live. She appeared agitat- ed. I understood the doctor had not been sent for. I offered to go for the doctor, and went for Dr. Bachelder. Saw her the day her husband died. She appeared much affected. Said she had all her life been afflicted with sudden deaths. That she knew George would not live, and that he had died for all the world like Mr. Freeman. Two or three ladies were present. Do not recol- lect any other particulars of that conversation. Saw her the day after the funeral, in the eve ning. She had attended the funeral. It was a military funeral. Her conversation was princi- pally, how strange it was that one and another was so suddenly taken from her. She said George was a fine husband and treated her well. I again saw her on Thursday afternoon, at her house. Heard she was sick ; that they were all sick. She said they were. She said she did not know what it was, but the bread was very strong of saleratus so strong that it was red. She tried to vomit. She said they had eaten cucumbers, mentioned in partic- ular the sour milk. Said that she had had a phy- sician, Miss Collins one and she another. Saw her again Monday after. Conversed whether she should continue house keeping or not. She said nothing aboutany medicine Mr Kinney had taken. She said George had been a fine husband to her, and every thing reminded her of him. Cross-examined. Don't recollect any reason Mrs K. gave why a doctor had not been called Saturday afternoon, when I offered to have Mr. Bingham go for one. Thomas G. Bradford. In August last lived with Charles Mead, an apothecary, tended his shop. A lady called in the afternoon, and asked what the article was we sold to kill rats with.— Told her arsenic. Asked how much it would take. I told her not a great deal. She said she would have three cents worth, a quarter of an ounce, 120 grains. I put it into two wrappers of papers, and wrote on the outside " poison."— Cannot remember the paper. Recollect both wrappers were of the same color. We never use white wrapping paper, used to use all colors. I told her we did not usually 6ell arsenic without a recipe from a physician. Mr Mead was out.—> The lady was about five and thirty should think. Small size. Never saw her before. Had sold arsenic before, about that time. I went away the 11th of August, to Augusta. It was about a fortnight before this, that I sold the arsenic in the afternoon. I sold arsenic at another time in the forenoon, to a lady—marked it in the same way—don't re- collect the quantity—don't recollect selling ar- senic to any other persons. I did not notice the lady who bought the three cent's worth—can- not say it was the prisoner, Mrs K. Think I should recognise my hand writing then—it has changed since. £The Atiorney General here offered some slips of paper—not the blue paper —with the word poison written on it.] Mr Dexter objects to this trial of the witness, as an attempt of the Attorney General to show his own witness cannot recognise his hand writing. Judge Shaw. The Court think it inadmissible, and the papers were withdrawn. The blue paper is shown to the witness with the word poison. Witness—I did not write that —I am certain of it. There is no general resem- blance to my hand writing. Mr Dexter objected to a cross examination by the government of its own witness. Attorney General proposed by compnrison with other hand writing of witness, to show that he could not he certain as to his own hand writing. Had not the Government a right to show that the witness was not right in declaring this not to be his hand writing, and thus either convince the witness he was wrong, or to satisfy the jury of it. Mr. Parker cited two cases at Nisi Prius trials for counterfeit bills, where the President of the Banks called by the government declared their signatures were called to shew they were forged signatures, and it was shewn the Presidents of the banks were mistaken. Mr Dexter replied that this was nothing else than a cross-examination by the government, of its own witness, and therefore inadmissible. Chief Justice. The object is to show the genuineness of the hand writing, and it is not competent to show it by cross-examination. The best evidence, the witness himself, denies it, and there his examination by the side pro- ducing him must stop. It is competent for the government to prove it by other witnesses, and then the principal witness may be re-examined, as in the case of proving hand writing of a deed. Ruled out. The examination proceeded. Witness has changed his hand writing from fancy, since last August. Has not been to writing school. Mr. Curtis objects to this form of examination. Chief Justice. It is incompetent, in this form of examination. Attorney General. Then we must take the answer as conclusive. 16 Chief Justice. We have not so decided. You may use other evidence, and after other posi- tive evidence is produced, re-examine the principal witness. Attorney General. Can the witness be called on to write now, at the table ? Chief Justice. Certainly not. Mr. Parker. Can we ask the reasons for his opinion ? Chief Justice. Yes. The witness hore examined the blue paper ; says he is confident it is not his writing, but very different, in the form of the letters and general appearance. Elizabeth B. Linncll. Worked at Mrs. Kin- ney's house. A week before his death worked at the shop. On Saturday, between three and four o'clock, saw Mrs. Kinney at the shop. She said her husband was very sick, she feared he would not live. She said Mr. Freeman and Mr. Freeman's father had died in a similar way. She said he was vomiting. Next saw her on Mon- day, at her house. She was sitting at the table. I wenf of my own accord. The shop was not open. They were eating breakfast. I asked her the cause of her husband's death. She said cholera morbus. I said she was wonderfully supported. She replied yes, she had every thing to comfort her, as he had his reason to the last. She spoke of her deceased husband very highly. She had been to the funeral and re- turned. On Friday, 1 went to her house. I had then heard the report of the poisoning. I had told it to Miss Collins. It made her faint. I went to Mrs. Kinney's hpuse, but did not see her. Mrs. Kinney came to the shop, in the af- ternoon of that day. 1 told her what I had heard about Mr. Kinney being poisoned. I told her I thought she ought to kuow what was said. I was agitated. She was composed and wished me to tell her all. I told her it was reported that she had poisoned Mr Kinney. She wished to know who made the report. I could not tell her. She wished to know if the young ladies knew it in the shop, or if I had told it to Miss Collins. She wished me to go for Dr. Sto- rer. She said "they accused me of poisoninor Mr Freeman to get Mr Kinney ; and now they accuse me of poisoning him ! who am I to get now ? This was in the course of the conversa- tion, can't tell if before or after she asked me to go for Dr. Storer. I went for him. I told her if she was innocent, she could look to God, who knew it. She said "yes,that was her only support, and as God was her judge, she was ' innocent!" She wished me to say nothing of it. When she asked if I had told Miss Collins, I did not answer whether I had. She said nothing more about it. Wished me to keep it from the girls in the shop, as much as possible. She did not say whether she had heard these reports be- fore I told her. She wished me to be particular and find out who raised the report. I told her that the gentleman who boarded in the house where I boarded had heard the report'. She wished me to ask them to be particular and find ort who made it. On Saturday after the funeral, I was in the ' parlor, making a dress, which she Was to wear to Church on Sunday. She said she hoped it I would be sanctified to her. She said she had | many enemies, and that Mr Freeman's friends would like to see her hung, she had done so well. She spoke of her husband as a kind husband I saw her the next Monday. Shetold me she did not wish to say any thing about the re- ports. When she left the city she gave up her dress-making to me, for my benefit. The shop has been continued. She said she should be back in a fortnight. I saw her the evening before she left the city. She did not speak to me of mourning dress, till after the funeral.— Asked me what she had best have. Cross-examined. I first heard the report on Wednesday, communicated it to her Friday af- ternoon, and then went for Dr Stover. Carried a verbal message to him that Mrs K. wished to see him. I went immediately from her house, the same afternoon I communicated the report. I saw Dr Storer, told him Mrs K. was not very well, and requested to see him. I had not seen him there before, during that week. Cannot recollect on what day after the funeral the shop was first open for customers. I think it must have been on Thursday, because on Wednesday her daughter left the town. I think it must have been on Wednesday that I first heard the report of the poisoning. It was Wednesday or Thurs- day that a lady came into the shop and told me. I cannot tell which day it was positively. I now think it was on Thursday afternoon, from some work we had in the shop. Dr. Asa B. Snow. Have known Mrs. Kinney since last July, prescribed for her in my office in Broomfield street, near Ballard place; never but once in my office. Had seen her before in the street, and had had some conversation about pre- scription. Did not know her husband. A week after his death I received a message from Mrs. Kinney. Went there on Thursday afternoon. Found Mrs. K. and Miss Collins both siok, sim- ilar in their sickness, but Miss C. the sickest. They had been vomiting. I had seen Mrs. K. the Saturday previous in the street. She said her husband was sick, and if he did not get bet ter she should send for me. I was not sent for. On Thursday she explained that she should have sent for me, bnt that her husband had previously spoken for Dr. Storer. I cannot give her lan- guage, only my impression that her husband wished to have Dr. Storer. Nothing more said of this, or abont a family physician. She told me of her husband having called on Dr. Harring- ton and had| grown worse every time he had taken his medicine. She spoke of cholera morbus, and of her former husband dying very suddenly. Cross Examined. I cannot say whether Mrs Kinney told me that a friend who watched there had desired Dr Storer should be sent for. It might be so. I derived the impression that Dr. Storer was sent for at Mrs Kinney's wish. Mrs Kinney and Miss Collins told me what they had eaten for breakfast. In my opinion the food they had taken, and irregularity of habit, from being in a house of mourning, were sufficient to account for all the symptoms I saw. 17 Had a conversation with Mr. Goodwin, after Mr. Kinney's death. He said nothing of having been made sick by the tea. I heard it from ru- mor. After the Coroner's inqnest, I saw Mr. Goodwin, and he then mentioned his sickness. I had heard rumo's of Mr. K's death at the first conversation with Mr. Goodwin. In Chief. First cenversation with Goodwin I had heard of the rumors. We conversed gen- erally upon the subject. Saw him in the street. The second time I saw him, conversed again of this subject. We went over it pretty generally. He then mentioned his sickness. I did not ask him why he had not mentioned it before. I have no recollection of his mentioning his sickness the first time. An over- dose of salaratus would produce irritation of the stomach, and that would bring on vomiting. At ten minutes past two, adjourned till half past three. Tuesday Afternoon. Mrs Adelia Bingham has known Mrs. Kinney since June last. Knew her husband some. Was learning a trade of Mrs. Kinney. Do not recollect when I left her home, think it was in July. Continued to work in the shop. Left it the Monday after Mr. Kinney died. Heard of his illness on Saturday. Mrs. K. was in the shop that afternoon. It was usually closed at 7 o'clock. She was there when I left at 7 o'clock. I saw nothing peculiar in her conduct. Don't recollect if Mrs. K. worked in the shop that day.— Next saw her at her house; Monday morning at 8 o'clock. Went there on finding the shop shut. There appeared to be domestic happiness in the house while I resided there. On Monday when there, I was assist- ing getting ready for the funeral. Nothing said as to the cause of Mr. K.'s death, there, nor at the funeral. I was at the funeral. Saw her the next morning. Was at her house all that day, Tuesday. Heard Mrs K. say that the cause of his death was cholera. Heard nothing said of the examination by the Doctors. That was all the conversation I ever had with her about the death. She said he was always kind to her. Never heard her complain of him or his habits. I was not then married. My name was Adelia King, since mar- ried. No cross examination. Ebenezer Shute. Is a Coroner for the County of Suffolk. Held an inquest on the body of Geo. T. Kinney. Identifies the blue paper as having been shown to him at the inquest. He took the paper and went to twenty druggists to ascertain if any one knew the writing of the word "poison." Could find no one. The young man, Bradford, was before the Coroner's Jury. Cross Examined. There had been a report that this man was poisoned. I forget who came to me to hold the inquest. Did not charge my mind with it. The testimony was taken down by the foreman, Abraham Moore, Esq, the lawyer; there were six jurors; cannot call them by name; Mr Wellington, another lawyer, was one; I signed the record and gave it to the Attor- ney General; not seen it since; went to the principal druggists in the city, all in the neighborhood; did not go to the extremes of the city; did not go to all the apothecary shops. In answer to the Attorney General. I think it was by your request or Mr Parker's request I held the in- quest. Charles M'/A was called, but was not in court. Almira Adams, sworn. Am acquainted with Mrs K. was not with .Mr K. when he died; returned to town the Monday after the Saturday preceding his death; was employed in her shop till a week after Mr Kinney's death; saw Mrs K. when I first returned; went to her house at 9 Monday morning, the shop being shut; saw Mrs K. but do not recollect any conversation respect- ing Mr Kinney's death; she appeared calm; did not speak of going to Vermont; at another time she said just before Mr K. died, she had intended to go to Ver- mont to see his friends, she thought she should go in a few days; she said that Mr K. requested her to go and see his friends in Vermont, after his death, if she would like to go; this was in the course of his sickness; the day after the funeral she said that she should die if she stayed here, every thing reminded her so of her husband. I heard her say, after his death, that Mr K. was a good husband; know of no difficulty between them. Never heard her speak against him. No cross examination. Almira W. Collins, called and sworn. Went to as- sist Mrs Kinney the 6th of August, in her business in the.shop. She wished me to come ; went to her house in Ballard place ; I saw Mr Kinney that evening at the house ; I did not speak to him ; Mrs Kinney was not in the house. On Friday I saw the family, Mr and Mrs Kinney, her daughter and myself composed the family; no one in the kitchen. Mrs K. was a perfect stranger to me when I went there ; I was at dinner on Friday; I was then introduced to Mr K. They appeared very pleasant. Mr K. expressed some disappointment at the manner in which the vegetables were prepared. On Thursday evening, at tea, Mrs Kinney said he had been taking medicine and complaining; Friday after- noon I went to Charlestown ana spent the night with some friends; returned on Saturday morning. About 10 o'clock Mrs Kinney said her husband was very sick at the store ; I was in the parlor when he came in and went up stairs ; she wished me to go up if I heard him vomit; at tea I asked if she was going to have a doc- tor ; Mrs K. said she was going after one ; she left the table, I presume for that purpose ; I was obliged to go to Charlestown again that evening after tea, and went; I returned and slept in the house that night. Mr Good- win came at 9 or 10 o'clock, and 1 was introduced to him by Mrs Kinney. Mr K. vomited and was distress- ed; he was evidently growing worse in the evening. Saw Mrs K. during the night; she appeared distressed as any one would be wholiad^a friend very sick ; she said she feared he would die in half an hour; I replied it was incredible. When I saw him he said he could not live unless relieved of his distress. When Doctors Bigelow and Storer came in, we understood that it was the Cholera, and were very much alarmed, but it did not prevent our doing our dufy. We put on poultices ; he said little, but was perfectly willing ; in the morn- iug I was told he was dying; I was surprised for I had no idea of it; we were called in to prayers; it was an agonizing scene; during the prayer he was panting for breath. After this I left the room; Mrs K. was stand- ing beside him ; slept with Mrs Kinney on Sunday night, I had learnt the cholera was not contageous, and the alarm had subsided. No particular conversation occurred that night. Tuesday morning Mrs K. wished me to go to the grave yard, to visit the tomb. It appeared to be out of affection for him. Her daughter and myself went with her to the tomb before breakfast. It was at the Chapel burying ground on Tremont street, under a willow tree. We went to the yard and looked over.— She sighed deeply and seemed greatly affected, and she wept. She gave me a sketch of her past life, but did not finish it. We went from the grave yard to the store. She there wept. She then went to make some purchases for her daughter, who was £oing to Ver- mont, and returned to the house to breakfast. Tuesday evening we went to the grave yard again. We did not get in. Wednesday morning her daughter Dorcas went to Vermont. Mrs Kinney was going in n lew days. In all she said to me I understood she 18 had lived happily with Mr K. Up to Wednesday after his death, I had heard nothing of poison. Supposed he had died of cholera. Ate breakfast at Mrs Kinney's on Thursday morning. Ate a small cake, and apple sauce ; am very fond of it. My health was as usual. Soon after breakfast I was taken sick, after I had gone from the house to the store. Felt very singular, as if taken sea-sick. Could not account for my feelings. I returned to the house and found Mrs Varney the same. Was taken with vomiting, and began to fear I had the same sickness Mr Kinney had died with. Mrs Varney went out after her little boy. I went up stairs and laid down, felt as if about to lose my senses, and sprang from the bed. Mrs K. came in and encouraged me. Sent for some porridge, said I was not going to be sick. The vomiting continued till evening. I went down in the parlor, and began to feel sick again. Told Mrs K. I wished I knew a doctor. She said she would go for her's. She did, and soon after Dr. Snow came in. He said it might be an irritation of the stomach. He pre- scribed some medicine, and advised me to lie down.— Mrs Kinney said she felt bad and sick herself; appear- ed pale. She was not so sick as I was, as I could not sit up. The next day I was very weak and feeble. I first learned the suspicion that Mr. Kinney had died by poison, on Friday, from Miss Linnell, I told her to say nothing of it but leave it with me, and I would tell Mrs. K at a proper time. I went into the parlor, Mrs. Kinney was there, but I felt reluctant to tell her. As she was going out, I told her I had some- thing to communicate, and I was then surprised to see l>r. Storer come in, and I left the room. I after- wards learned she was aware of the report, Miss Lin- nell having told her. Saturday night she requested me to walk out. I had got better. She then wished me to go to Dr Storer and ask him for a certificate that Mr K. died of cholera; she wished it in consequence of the reports; this was after I had told her. I went to Dr Storer and made the request; he declined on the ground that it was not advisable to give a certificate as the cir- cumstances we,re known to but few. At the examination by Doctors Bigelow and Jack- son, I said to her, after they were gone, that she had had an early call. She replied, oh, yes, Dr Jackson was going to the hospital, and had stopped to make some examination about the cholera; she eat her break- fast and appeared composed; she never told me what the doctors said; she did not go to church the Sunday following Mr K's. death; that afternoon I carried a note from MrsK to Dr Storer; he read it and said he pre- sumed I knew that Mr K. had died of poison. This was the first I knew of the discovery made by the doc- tor; 1 cannot describe-my sensations; when I returned I ro.'..*cd it to her, she was greetly affected, and said, "Oh that God would make known the mystery why George had done it; why he would not disclose the secret cause;" I will not say that she was in an agony of grief, but she 'appeared agonized; I expressed sur- prise that he should have died so calmly and called on God for mercy, when he was his own murderer; she said it was one of his dark, deep designs; she said, "I never told you that George got high;" I asked her why they had not searched for arsenic; she said they had found pills; she said there were vials and medicines in his drawers, which he was in the habit of using; inti- mated for a particular purpose; she described him as noble and generous; I asked why she married him; she said at one time out of pity, and at another, to get rid of him; she expressed surprise that he should have tak- en poison, said she could not believe it, and the Doctors must be mistaken; she said she asked him, on the Sat- urday he was on the bed, what he had been taking; he replied only a glass of wine; she said you promised not to take any more, and he replied it would be his last; before she went to Vermont she said she should not be surprised if she was arrested, as she had so many church enemies, who would be glad to see her hung, she gpoke of this several times. I received a letter from her while she was in Ver- mont. [The Attorney General here produscd a letter which witness identifies as the one she received from Mrs Kinney. It was not put in as evidence.] Cross Examined. Witness asked Dr Storer at the request of Mrs Kinney, to put a piece in the paper.— He said he would give a certificate. Harriet Hosford, a niece of the deceased, was at the house of deceased on the Sunday he died, in the afternoon. Conversed with Mrs K. She said consid- erable; conversed about having lost friends by sudden death; spoke kindly of her husband. I remained till tea time. Went with her to her room. She said "you saw your uncle as he was the other evening, and 1 don't know but he was taken in mercy; no one knows how much I have suffered the last summer." The evening she meant, Mr Kinney had just return- ed from the wnig meeting in Chelsea. He appeared much excited. She seemed to wish me to understand he was intoxicated. I never thought him dissipated. I attended the funeral and rode in the same carriage with her. Next saw her on Tuesday. On Wednesday I went to my home at Thetford, Vermont. Mrs K/j daughter went with me. \\ itness met the prisoner at Thetford, Vermont, soon after she arrived there, at the house of witness's father. She appeared much affected and shed many tears. There was a miniature of Mr Kinney in the room belonging to my mother. She appeared deeply affected at it. We asked her if there was sickness in Boston. She said yes, and people were leaving the city very fast. She did not speak of Mr K.'s death or how it happen- ed ; she conversed with me afterwards, about her hus- band ; said he had become very dissipated, and had acquired a habit of gambling; that his conduct was the cause of her children's leaving. I do not recollect any thing else she said ; I told her I never thought so, and requested her to say nothing of it to my mother; at that time I had head no reports as to poison ; she arrived on the Saturday before ; this conversation was Tuesday, at Dr. Kendrick's; she said nothing of the reports of poiscning her husband, till the next evening; she then communicated them; we passed Tuesday and Wed- nesday night at Dr. Kendrick's ; Thursday we went to my fathers; she was at my father's when the officer ar- rived on Saturday ; she was taken there and conveyed to the public house; she conversed freely about return iug to Boston, and related to me a story about an in terview she had with a lady in the stage, nearly as it appeared in the newspapers. She told me the man ner in which she first heard the rumors, from Mr Lane. Cannot say how long it was before she left Boston. Cross examined. I heard the officer communicate the object of his visit; she was calm and collected; 1 went to the public house and remained with her that night, at my own offer. Dorcas, the child, went up with me to Thetford; she was much attached to me. The child was much disturbed and excited at the death of Mr Kinney; she had seen the body after the dissec- tion, and saw the blood and was much alarmed; that may have been a reason for her going out of, the city with me, but was not mentioned as such at the'time. Dr. Charles Mead. Keeps an Apotheary's shop on 4th and Turnpike street; young Bradford is in his em- ploy ; have not ascertained to whom I sold poison in August; is shown a notice which he says he sent to several clergymen last Sunday, and requested thein to read it from the pulpit. Dr. Hildreth called at my store, and wished me to state if I had sold arsenic to any woman; my lad, Bradford was then in Maine. When he came home I inquired of him, and he told me he had sold some poison to a lady; I have never been able to ascertain who it was. Cross examined. I sent the notice to the clergymen inconsequence of the Attorney General having request- ed me to take every means to ascertain to whom I sold 19 the poison. He suggested advertising but did not suggest this mode. [The notioe was printed, and requested that if any woman had purchased poison of Dr. Charles Mead, a few days previous to the 11th of August, she would come forward and let it be known, to serve the cause of Justice, as it was suspected that Mrs Hannah Kin- ney, charged with poisoning her husband had pur- chased arsenic about that time, and if any other woman had done so,and would let it be known, it would relieve her from this suspicion.] Mrs Kendricks, who resides in Thetford, Vt. was now called but was not in court. The Attorney Gen- eral stated she was a material witness and was ex- pected to arrive that evening in the Cars from Lowell. He stated that her testimony, save further questions to Mr Goodwin, and the examination of another witness, not very material, would close the testimony on the part of the Government. It being 7 o'clock the Court adjourned till 9 this morning. Without any reference to the character of the testi- mony, we cannot refrain from an expression of approba- tion of the intelligence, self possession and uniform and lady-like deportment of the young ladies who were subjected to the painful test of a public examination as witnesses, in a crowded Court room. These young ladies whose appearance and manners were highly prepossessing, and who have enjoyed in their useful av- ocations of duty and industry, but few of the advanta- ges of more favored but not more estimable circles, ac- quitted themselves, with a discretion, modesty and delicacy, that would do honor to the most accomplish ed females, and which few could surpass in similar try- ing circumstances. Wednesday morning, Dec. 23. The Attorney General stated that Mrs Kenricks of Thetford, Vt., who had been expected, had not arrived, and the}' must dispense with her testimony. Wm. F. Goodwin recalled. Remembers a conversa- tion with Dr. Snow in Bromfield street. It was unex- pected to me; he came out of his office; I do not seem to recollect the amount of the conversation ; it related to the death of Mr Kinney. After the apprehension of Mrs Kinney, I saw her at the house of Mr Adams, the constable. Mr Adams was in the room; I shook hands with her and said I was sorry to see her so. She said if it had not been for my testimony and Miss Col- lins she should not have been in that situation. I replied it was unkind in her to think so, for I was sum- moned before the Coroner and obliged to tell what I knew. That I did it very reluctantly. I told her she had nothing to fear if she was innocent. I asked her to explain some circumstances. She then said Mr Kin- ney poisoned himself. 1 told her I could not believe it, and related the manner of his death, which to my mind rendered it impossible. She said 1 should have to be- lie vo it, that he had done it and she knew for what. I asked her what reason she could assign and she told me that he had stated to her that he would make way with himself if he ever got the disease which he then had; that he said rather than any body should know it he would make way with himself. I remarked that I did not think that he had that disease. I saw nothing of the kind. She said he had, and there was a gentleman who would state that fact. Before I left the room, she requested me to keep still. Did not wish I should say any thing. Nothing further wa» said, at that time. Mr. Parker. You are sworn to tell the whole truth ; have you any thing further to add. Witness. Nothing. Cross-examined. I am a house painter. Use artists colors in my business. Have king's yellow in the shop. Seldom use it. Have a partner—place of business is in Bromfield street. On reflection, we have no King's yellow in the shop. Dr. Storer again called, as to the effect of saleratus; produces acidity and a disposition to vomit. In large quantity if taken into the stomach, produces irritation and acts as cathartic. In answer to Chief Justice. I was called by Mr. Goodwin to visit Mr Kinney, in the morning, and I supposed until yesterday, that the same man who called me first, called me the second time. When I was there tea was administered, I sup- posed while Mr Goodwin was present, but it now ap- pears it was not he; I supposed so until he told me to the contrary. A man was present when I was there to see Mr. Kinney; and tea was administered by that per- son. Mrs Kinney was on the bed. She did not hand the tea to Mr Kinney while I was there. Afterwards, when the poisoning was suspected, I recollect Mr Good- win wringing his hands and saying he was individually the cause of Mr Kinney's death, by giving him the tea. Being asked if it was Miss Collins who called on him both times for the certificate as to Mr Kinney's death, says he thought so when testifying before, 1 supposed it was the same individual, but now understand it was not, —that Miss C. called but once, with a note, which the witness identifies. It was written in pencil, without date, thus— " Dr Storer favor me with a call this afternoon. It will gratify me very much,—if it is possible. Respectfully, H. Ki.nney." Mr Parker offered the letter written by Mrs Kinney to Miss Collins, from Thetford. He said if it made for the prisoner she was entitled to the benefit of it, if against her the government were entitled to it. No objection. The letter was then read as follows : Thetford, August 29, 1840. Dear Miss Collins,—It seems a long time since I left home, one week to-morrow. I arrived here safe, Sat- urday—found my friends expecting me. Dorcas and all were well. I have been visiting from place to place, as people are accustomed to in the country. Every thing looks pleasant as I could expect it (it erased) in view of the late almost tragical scene. O how much I think of what is going on at your place. Miss Col- lins I pity you. But one thing let me desire you to do. Act in all things as you would for your own sister, whom you knew to be as innocent as (the erased) your- self. Now is the time for the enemy to reign. I know not how much I have got to suffer on this earth, but hope to take all things with as much composure as my feeble health will admit of. I have said nothing here of the excitement at home. His sister I find was not ignorant of the eccentricities of his character, and feared what f had to tell her was true. This affords me relief to think that others know the same things that I do, painful as they are. [ have nothing particular to say Miss 0. only that if you are as careful of all that you say and do as possible, all will be well with you, and as for myself, 1 feel that this stroke will bring me to a premature grave. I feel that every tie is broken that bound me to earth. T shall start on Wednesday next to go to different parts of Ver- mont, to see brothers and sisters of the late George T. Kinney. I have met with the most cordial reception (as yet) that a person could meet with. But no more of this. I will say now that my busy imagination trav- 'JO els back over mountains and valleys to you. and there I see you burstling about hardly knowing what to think of what you see and hear. Well, Dear Girl, let me say to you, suffer not one remark to make an im- pression. Read the Bible and pray over the subject with a desire to be directed aright in all your feelings, and I trust you will be directed aright. Give my love to all the girls. I shall write to Charles to-day. I want you to write me just as soon as you receive this, and not keep anything from me that you think I ought to know, or that you think you would be glad to know in the same situation. A number of things I had forgotten to mention be- fore I left, but I shall soon be at home. Can't tell the day until I hear from some of you. Shall not start till Wednesday next on account of the mail getting in on Tuesday night next. On Saturday last as I was pass- ing on in the stage, I heard one of the most distressing relations of the person of myself you ever heard. We soon stopped at a public house for the night. I took her into my room, and asked her all the questions that I thought was necessary to ask her, (it was related to one woman by another, that sat on the back seat directly behind me—some very interesting conversation was going on by gentlemen on the front seat; they did not hear any remarks by those persons in the shape of women.) Well, after I had asked her all the questions I wanted to, I told her who 1 was. She said she could not believe me. I frankly lold her that what she had told there was not the least shadow of truth in; that I could say with peace of mind, and a conscience clear of offence: that things could not be related more un- just or cruel. But also time, the unreturning tide of time, is bearing us on where every secret will be re- vealed—there every veil will be withdrawn, and all will be seen and known, as God designs, if we are his children. Good bye, H. KINNEY. Say to Mr Goodwin, that I visited his mother yester- day. His father and mother were not at home—saw Stone and Annette; they were all well; thought they were glad to see me. Shall go again as soon as his father and mother get home. If any letters come for me, please to put into the office, directed to the care of Dr Kindrick, Thetford, Vt. [Direction on the back of the letter.] Miss T. Collins, No. 9, Ballard Place, Boston. Will the P. M. forward this without delay. Mrs Hannah Varney called again. The morning ol the apple sauce breakfast, she put two table spoonfuls of a solution of salaeratus into the cake. Miss Harriett Hasford recalled at her own request, tc correct a statement. / t the time I expressed my sur- prise that Mr Kinney should have died so calm and composed if he had committed suicide, Mrs Kinney told me that he had exclaimed, "O God, I have killed my- self." The evidence for the prosecution being clos- ed, Mr Curtis, the junior Counsel for the prison- er rose and said, that he had not heard a^y thing in the opening of the case on the part of the Govfrnment, which indicated to what point the evidence concerning the sickness of the family on Thursday would be urged, or what inference would be drawn from it. He now wished to hear some statement from the coun- sel for the Government, of the points to which that evidence would be directed. Shaw, C. J, (after consulting with the oth- er Judges ) We cannot now pass any general order on the subject of the evidence. If the prisoner's counsel wished to exclude the evi- dence, the point could have been raised when the witnesses were called. Curtis. My object has not been to exclude the evidence, although we think that we might have embarrassed its introduction. I merely wish to know how it is to be urged as tending to prove the guilt of the prisoner. The Court hav- ing intimated that it cannot pass any order on the subject, I will ask the counsel for the Gov- ernment to state to us the point to which they intend to use that evidence. Austin, Att'y General. I do not feel called upon to make any statement. Mr Curtis then addressed the Jury as fol- lows :— MR. CURTIS'S OPENING ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENCE. May it please your Honors : Gentlemen of Jury . — The drama of suspicion has reached one of its stages, and the victim of popular prejudice and delusion is, it may be hoped, one step nearer to a deliverance. This most interesting and important case is now to be opened on behalf of the prisoner. You will probably have anticipated that I should call your attention to some of the general features of the case, before I proceed to state the substance of the defence. First of all then, I feel that it is not improper for me to state to you how my learned friend and myself, instead of other gentlemen who have from time to time been reported as of counsel for Mrs Kinney, should appear in her defence. You have doubt- less seen it stated in the newspapers, that differ- eent gentlemen of eminence at this bar have been applied to, to act as her senior counsel; and you are now aware that her defence is in other hands. My colleague and myself have felt that among the causes of prejudice which have seemed to be accumulating upon this un- happy person, one of the most serious was the impression that might be derived from the fact which I have just stated—that learned and emi- nent persons had, on learning something of the case, declined to embark in it. Gentlemen, I have a right, and it is my duty to say that this is not the fact. No person at this bar, who has been applied to by this defendant, has been so wanting in the true spirit of humanity, or in the true sentiment of professional duty. But the time, the exertions and efforts of counsel engaged in large practice, are not their own. They be- long to others ; and a violent departure from the routine of engagements that may have been contracted, leads not only to much private in- convenience, but likewise to public injury, in 81 deranging the business of the Courts. There i was yet another reason. This unfortunate per- son did not possess the means of remunerating counsel; and the distinguished persons who were applied to, would not have been justified in deranging their previous engagements, with- out such remuneration as would enable them to command the services of others who could sup- ply their places and perform their duties to their clients and the Court, which had been pre-en- gaged. Under these circumstances Mrs Kinne v could only place herself in the hands of the Court.— There is an old and merciful fiction of the Law, by which the Judges are represented as the counsel of the accused ; and founded upon this, as I undei stand it, is the practice of appointing counsel to conduct the defence, the Court dele- gating to them the labor of the cause, but still preserving, as we trust, its watchful guardian- ship over the rights of the accused. It was found, on enquiry, that my learned friend could, at a sacrifice, undertake this defence ; and along with him, 1 have been appointed to aid in pre- senting it to you. The next topic to which I wish to advert is one anticipated by the opening counsel for the Government, but which will not be used as he anticipated. Allusions will certainly be made by both of us to the solemn and weighty re- sponsibility which the consequences of your verdict throw upon you. But 1 beg you not to misunderstand those allusions. Neither of us are here to seek to fright you from the perform- ance of a public duty. The awful result of a conviction under this indictment is the law of the land ; and however you or I might wish to change that law, here there is but one duty, solemn, responsible, painful it may be, but yet a duty, to be performed manfully in the face of man, and relying on the mercy of God. I put away therefore all discussion of the right of hu- man society thus to inflict the last dread evil, as a punishment. But I do not put away the final consequence itself. 1 keep it—1 claim to keep it ever before you, as the great warning that shall rouse and sustain your minds to a re- ligious care in the weighing of the evidence. I assert that in capital trials, the constant pres- ence of the result of conviction is to the mind of the juror enly that additional sanction, upon his oath, which the imperfection of human judgment needs. In the most common transac- tions in Courts of Justice, we appeal directly— as a motive and stimulus to the mind—to the Deity. God is invoked, that we may truly and impartially decide upon the evidence. But what a sanction, what a motive and stimulus ought to be here ! He is not only invoked, in whose hands are the issues of life and death, but that Eternity into which we may be about to dismiss one of his immortal creatures, is present to the mind. Do you not feel that, in the great task before you, such a thought is needed ? When you took those seats, to enter upon this trial, did you not feel 'hat some support to the conscience, some motive to more than ordinary care, was needed to carry you through this im- portant duty, and prevent the sad result of re- grets which might be too late .' There is yet another topic to which I feel it my duty to advert. You know that for months, the very atmosphere has been rife with rumors respecting this case and the history of the de- fendant. You know that insinuations and sto- ries have accumulatad upon this occurrence, shedding upon it a false and fatal light, which the eye of credulity, has gazed at, as if demon- stration itself had heen produced. You know that subjects have been alluded to here, which it is necessary to exclude from the mind, in weighing this evidence. You will not feel, gentlemen, that in addressing rt yself to this part of the case—in appealing to yqur care up- on these points—I do i: from any want of con- fidence in your strictly conscientious dis- charge of duty. But the effort to which the mind is called, completely and faithfully to per- form that duty, is serious and severe. I know how hard it is to shut out all fore- knowledge, all sources of testimony, all facts and surmise* and conjecture, which are not drawn from what is legitimately before us in evidence. When a peculiar view is pressed upon the mind, and it is casting about for cor- roboration and support, so insidious is the ope- ration of prejudice that it will sometimes un- consciously, and with purest intentions, seize that corroboration from sources which the pub- lic justice has declared shall nctt jeopardise a hair of the head of one accused. Pardon me,gentlemen, if, in alluding lo this dan- ger, 1 have spoken thus directly. I do indeed re- joice that the trial by Jury furnishes precisely that intelligent, practical state of the mind—conver- sant in affairs and thoroughly knowing human nature—which constitutes the very best tribu- nal for the weighing of evidence. I rejoice too, that in this community, juries are daily gathered for the administration of justice, whom no accus- ed person can doubt or fear. But, gentlemen, 1 had a duty to perform, in clearing the ground for this defence, which would not suffer me to approach you with the language of ordinary compliment by which to manifest my confidence in you. I feared when I commenced the inves- tigation of the case fourteen days ago, that it might be one of those dark webs of circum- stance in which the innocent are sometimes in- volved, for want of light. I irembleo for the public justice—that it might be abused by mak- ing one hypothesis alone the object of its reflec- tions and enquiries. I thought therefore, gen- tlemen, to speak to you in the fullness of my own anxiety, directly to that interior conscience which resides iu all men,«and by so speaking to make you feel that we bring this case to your decision with confidence in you and in the re- sult. The defendant, gentlemen of the jury, stands ndictfid for the murder of her husband by poison. It was said, in the opening, that the evidence the government would offer, was both positive and circumstantial. It is true, evidence has been given tending to show that arsenic was found in the stnmnch of the deceased, and that 'J% he died from that cause ; but that this fact, if it be so, has any tendency to show that Hannah Kinney administered it, I appeal to your judg- ment. There is not a particle of direct evidence to show that the wife administered the poison, if indeed he died of that cause. There is cir- cumstantial evidence, and nothing but circum- stantial eviuence in the whole case, as made out by the prosecution. Let us look, then, at the proper definition of circumstantial evidence, before we proceed far- ther. An issue of fact is sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence, when, in the absence of direct proof of the principal fact, certain other facts are offered in evidence, trom which the Jury are asked to infer the principal fact, which is intended to be established. Now this is at best an inferior species of evidence. It is inferior, because it is only in the absence of direct proof, that it can ever be resorted to. The law does not permit circumstantial evidence to be used, when positive evidence can be produced. It is also inferior, because the common sentiment of mankind, upon questionsof momentous interest, leans in favor of direct proof. It is very common for those who rely on cir- cumstantial evidence, to represent it as capable of producing as high a degree of certainty as di- j rect proof. 1 am not disposed to deny that it \ may sometimes satisfy the mind. I am alsodis- j posed not to deny that there is sometimes a ne- j cessity for resorting to it, and that its entire re- jection would impair the administration of the I Law. But 1 never will, for one, upon this or . any other occasion, fail to surround it, to restrict j it and hedge it in, with all the energy of which I am capable, with those checks and safeguards, under which alone it can be any thing better than th° merest tyranny of opinion, founded on conjecture. I have read those melancholy te- cords of the pride of human judgment, referred to by the opening counsel, which disclose con- victions of the innocent, proceeding from the neglect or oversight ©f some principle, simple, yet essential to the truth. 1 did not, as he an ticipated, design to cite them here ; but they are familiar to every professional reader, and I have always drawn from them far different con-' elusions from those of the learned counsel. I have always risen from their perusal, with a conviction that it is a duty which every lawyer owes to his race, to maintain a rigid philosophy of circumstantial evidence. It is not because the theory of evidence is not now better under- stood, than it was in the times when those cases occurred ; nor is it because the understandings of jurors are not now better cultivated—that those remarkable and painful errors remain for- ever important warnings to every generation. It is because the human mind, with all its culti- vation and all its pride of knowledge, remains ever the same in its constitution, ever liable to the same mistakes, abuses and impositions, that we should never lose sight of those dark exam- ples of error. It is too, because those very er- rors have illustrated and negatively established the principles, the oversight of which constitutes the error, that they should be made to stand out on the page of history, wirnings to all coming time, of the immutable truth and soundness of the principles thus fatally neglested. I ask your attention, then, to the principles which are to bs app'.ied to the eytmination of this evidence. And recurring to the definition which I have given of this kind of proof, I observe that the first great rule of circumstan- tial evidence is this. 1. That every one of the fact* and circum- stances from which you are asked to draw the main inference, must be proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt. If the basis is unsound, the superstructure cannot stand. If you are in doubt respecting the truth of any essential fact among those from which you are to draw the inference, you can never reach that inference. You cannot begin to take a step towards it. Every one therefore of the facts and circum- stances must be rigidly serutinized. You must be satisfied of the truth of every one of them, before you can allow it to have the smallest place in the chain of evidence, upon which the main inference depends. It follows too,as a necessary corollary from this po ition, that each circumstance must be established by its own independent proof, tend- ing directly to it. The idea of drawing an in- ference by the aid of that which is itself estab- lished by inference, never yet entered into any theory of evidence, and cannot bear the test of reason. You must be satisfied by the direct, positive testimony of credible witnesses, that each fact is proved, and the proof must tend directly to the fact. Thus to take an illustra- tion from the case on trial. Goodwin, it is as- serted, was made sick by the sage tea; the in- ference is that the tea contained arsenic. You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he was made sick by that tea; and on his tes- timony alone. You cannot go to the otler cir- cumstances in the case to argue to this. Thus, you cannot go to the apparently inconsistent or guilty conduct or appearance of the prisoner, and argue that she probably poisoned the de- ceased, and thence that the tea was the vehicle, and thence that it made Goodwin sick, and af- ter this process of deduction, give the fact of Goodwin's sickness a place in the chain of cir- cumstances. His sickness, caused by the tea, must first be proved to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, as if there were nothing else in the case; and then you may place it among the other cir- cumstances from which the main inference is to be drawn. In short, the Government must prove every single circumstance wnich they put forward, from whirh the conclusion is to be drawn, in the same manner and to the same ex- tent as if the whole issue had rested upon the proof of each individual circumstannec It follows also as another corollary, from the same position, that if any fact fails to be proved it weakens the force of all the rest, as a chain of proof. It is generally agreed by the best wri- ters on evidence, that the force of a number of independent circumstances is increased by each addition, in something like a mathemati- cal ratio. It is not convenient, in moral rea- 23 soning, to state such a ratio 11 numbers. But the numerical raito of mathematical process is a convenient analogy, by which to illustrate the increase in the force of circumstantial proof.— Under this illustration,'it is at once apparent, that if the addition of a single circumstance in- creaces the force of all the rest, in a certain ratio, the subtraction of that circumstance weakens the force of all the rest in the same ratio. The second rule to which I call your atten- tion, is 2. That all the facts and circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis. If any one of them is inconsistent, the whole falls to the ground. Thus Goodwin tells you that the sage tea had a sweet taste ; and the hypothesis is that it contained arsenic. Now you must not only be satisfied that the tea had a sweet taste, but also that it is consistent with the presence of arsenic to cause a sweet taste in the tea.— The fact upon this point is quite otherwise.— We shall show you that arsenic is not of a per- ceptibly sweet taste, or of any taste at all. The third rule is, 3. That the facts and circumstances must not only be of a conclusive tendency, but they must to a moral certainty actually exclude ev- ery other hypothesis. In other words, they must be shown to be not only consistent with the guilt of the prisoner, but inconsistent with her innocence. This is the grand, cardinal rule of circumstantial evidence, and under it, it must not only be proved to you that the deceas- ed died of arsenic, and that it is consistent with all the facts to suppose that it was administered by his wife, but you must also be convinced that it could not have been given to him by ac- cident or design, by some one else, or taken by his own act. You are to be satisfied that the manner of the death, and all the circumstances which the Government have put in evidence, are to a moral certainty inconsistent with any other supposition than that the deceased was murdered by his wife. Here I have to state to you that the burthen of proof is not upon us. It is not for this wife, arraigned as I believe on the merest slanders of suspicion, to account for the dea'h of that hus- band who went into Eternity at peace at least with her, however ill at ease he might have been with the world and himself. That death may be in the inscrutable knowledge of God, or locked in the bosoms of those who will not tell. It is not her duty to show you how it occurred. If it were, no human being could be safe under accusation, no administration of the law could be other than an engine of the purest and most unmitigated injustice and folly. The rule that I have stated, is the grand principle which pre- vents circumstantial evidence from working this monstrous wrong. It is the dictate of reason and the undeniable principle of law, that the circumstancHS should to a moral certainty ex- elude every hypothesis but that proposed. Here is the burthen upon the Government. They must brine you a train of circumstances w hich are rationally consistent with no other supposi tion, than that the poison was admintstered by the wife. Our duty, on the other hand, is not to prove—not to account—not to demonstrate the mode by which this death took place. We have only to suggest, We have only to show you that the fact of the death and the ciraum- stances attending it, are consistent with any one of several other suppositions, and our task is ended, and neither you nor I will ever be visited with fears and misgivings that a horrible injus- tice has stained the annals of our law. Hence, gentlemen, you will perceive the prin- ciple upon which this defence proceeds. It will consist in showing that the case made by the Government is utterly insufficient for a convic- tion ; because it does not begin to exclude all other rational modes of accounting for this death. In other words, because it is not inconsistent with innocence. Here let me remark that it is not a balance of probabilities, between one and another mode that is to settle the question of guilt. That may or may not be the ground upon which public or private opinion proceeds to condemn or persecute. The victim may be pur- sued info the temple of justice, upon conjectures and probabilities, but it cannot be immolated here, without a struggle, and without a moie rigid satisfaction of the rules of law than any mere probabilities will afford. Here are those who will hold over her the protection of those great maxims of the law, which are established alike for the protection rf the innocent and the detection of the guilty. Beyond all question, it is one of those maxims, upon which all such evidence rests, that the mere probability in favor of one hypothesis, as compared with the proba- bility in favor of another, is of no sort of conse- quence, unless the circumstances adduced in support of it exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, all other suppositions. But, gentlemen, although a comparison of pro- babilities will not alone warrant a conviction, or indeed weigh at all in turning the scale in favor of guilt, yet it will and must add greatly to the strength and weight of argumenl, in favor of innocence, if we show you that the probabilities are vastly greater In favor of one or all of the hypotheses which we suggest, than they are in favor of that set up by the Government. The reason for this position is obvious. Nothing but circumstances of a conclusive tendency, which exclude all other rational suppositions, can ever convict: because they still leave room for rea- sonable doHbt, inasmuch as some other supposi- tion nny be true, admitting all the facts proved. The probability of the story, therefore, is of no consequence, because if there be anything that may yet be the truth, notwithstanding all the facts, the mind cannot oe satisfied beyond a rea- sonable doubt. But on the other band, when you show that several other suppositions may be true, under all the facts, and that the amount of probability is vastly in f'avorof any one of them, you'iricrease the doubts which the mind is com- pelled to entertain of the hypothesis first pro- posed. This is important, to be borne in mind, in this case, because here is a wife indicted for the mur- der of her husband 21 Here 1 pray your attention to another principle nf this defence, which I state in advance of any objections which may be urged. 1 am about to lay before you several modes, in which this death might have occurred ; only one of these can be the absolute truth; yet it doss not lie with the Government to say that tht>i is an inconsist- ency on the part of the defendant. 1 will show you that it is a perfectly consistent defence; consistent with the rules of law and with the actual position in which the defendant is placed. 1 pray your Honors, with special attention to this point, to sanction the principle upon which in pirt I now base this defence, when the Jury shall come to be instructed. The defendant i-s indicted for the murder of her husband,and the«evidence is purely circum- stantial. Now, in the first place, the burthen of proof is not upon her. The Government must prove to the full satisfaction of every mind upon your panel,beyond a reasonable doubt, that the hypothesis which they set up is not only con- sistent with guilt, but that it is inconsistent with innocence. 2. In the second place, the inno- cence of the prisoner is to be presumed, until your minds are satisfied of the proposition I have juststated. That presumption began, when she was first charged with this offence, and it con- tinues and is to be carried along with you, until your minds are satisfied of her guilt. 3. Being innocent of the crime, as you are bound to presume her throughout the evidence, and the weighing of the evidence, she cannot know how that death occurred. I say she can- not know it. It is certainly possible, that she might be innocen', and yet know how the de ith occurred ; as, if it was a suicide, and her hus- band had disclosed it to her before he breathed his last breath; or, if it was an accident, and she had discovered how the accident occurred. But all such suppositions as these are extrava- gant and unreasonable. The mind rejects them, too, as unnatnral and inconsistent with the pos- ture of an innocent mind arraigned upon such an accusation. If she, being innocent, really knew how this death occurred, she would tell it; the contrary supposition is too monstrous to be entertained. It is therefore logically and ra- tionally correct to say, that being innocent, she cannot be supposed to know ho rr the death was occasioned. I assert, therefore, that her position at this moment, in the eye of reason and of the law, is simply this—that being innocent of the crime, as you are bound to presume her, she cannot account for that death. But because she cannot account for it by posi- tive proof, is she therefore to be condemned ? God forbid. Niy, he does forbid it. Such a condemnation is impossible. The case does not begin to be one of those, where the party is bound to accoun' far any thing. There a class of cases, where the law requires the accused to account for the facts. As where stolen goods are found in his possession ; that possession must b^ accounted for ; or where the weapon with which it is certain one has been murdered, is found in the possession of the accused ; that I possession must be accounted for. But here, no instrument or means of the death, is traced into her possession. The presumption is and must be, that she is innocent. She must therefor* be silent. That silence is the silence of truth. She cannot show you how it occurred, even if the law required her to do so, and it never hit required and never will require an impossi- bility. If, then, she cannot show you how it actually did occur, what may she do? She may show you how itmight have occurred. She may show this, in one or in several ways, and may then call upon you to decide, whether the supposition which the Gavernment assert, excludes all oth- er rational suppositions, and whether the facts are not only consistent with guilt, but are to a moral certainty inconsistent with innocence. Suffer her not, then, Gentlemen, to be affected with the cruel imputation, that her defence is inconsistent. There might be cases, where the suggestion of several suppositions in which the fact might have occurred, would be felt to be a tampering with the jury. But such is not this case. It is the absolute necessity of her post- tion, from which nothing but Omniscience can relieve her, that she should not be able to show you how this death was occasioned But she can show how it might have been, and her right to do this can no more be restricted to one or another line ofdefence, than you can say, before you have looked through all rational supposi tions, it must have been thus, or thus, and we will look at nothing else. I propose now, Gentlemen, to examine the case made by the Government, by the circum- stantial evidence on which they rely. 1. The first of these circumstances is a train of conduct and actions and declarations of the prisoner, which it is to be argued, aie explica- ble only on the aupposition of her guilt. The first circumstance urged to prove this, will be her sending to Dr. Storer to procure a certificate that Mr. Kinney died ot cholera.— You will recollect that Dr. Storer himself sup- posed the deceased died of cholera, »nd in all the testimony that goes to show the sending for that certificate, how little have you that is defi- nite, as to time, inducement or object. Witness- es have come voluntarily to the stand this morning to correct mistakes which they now admit they fell into yesterday, even in a matter on which life and death depend. What reliance can be placed on circumstantial evidence, where the circumstances are themselves in doubt! Dr. Storer says it was on Tuesday she spoke of the certificate, and he concludes that because he had not then told her of the death by poison, and the suspicions, no one else could have done so, and he not have known it. This is an in- ference from an inference, neither of which are proved. The evidence is that rumors of the poison were rife on Sunday, and that, on that account, upon suggestions made to Dr. Storer, a second examination was made ot the body.— Why then might not Mrs Kinney have known of these rumors on Monday ? but even if she did not know of them, she might have applied 25 for a certificate as to the cause of his death, from various motives other than guilt—not to avoid suspicion as to herself, but for a negative pupose, to show what the actual cause of a death some- what sudden and unusual, was. There seems to be a perfectly rational mode of accounting for her applying for the certificate, consistent with her entire innocence, even if she had not then heard of the rumors. But when were these rumors set afloat ? This Dr. Hildredth, of whom we know nothing in this case, but as we find him here and there promo- ting this prosecution ; he had suggested the notion of poison, before this. Dr. Storer had heard of it. The rumors did exist and were all over the town on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, and Mrs Kinney told Dr. Storer there were such rumors, when she saw him, (as he says) on Tuesday. But there is another and more rational explana- tion of this application for ij;_*eertincate. 1 be- lieve that Dr. Storer is honestly mistaken, as to the time. Miss Linnell says it was Wednesday after the funeral, when the shop was first open- ed, and that she heard the rumors on that day, from a lady who came into the shop, and that she went directly to Mrs Kinney's and told her, and that Mrs K. immediately sent her to Dr. Storer for the certificate. It is now obvious that Miss Linnell went first to Dr. S. for him to call upon Mrs K. with reference to the certificate.— Yesterday Dr Storer testified that it was Miss Collins who first called. Today he corrects it and is satisfied it was not Miss Collins who made the first call, at the request of Mrs Kinney. It is highly probable therefore, that the Dr has been mistaken in this important fact, and that it was Miss Linnell who first requested him to see Mrs K. respecting the certificate. Ifso it was on Wednesday, and not on Monday, that the Dr had the first interview with Mrs K. when she requested the certificate. I am aware that Miss Linnell testified that she thinks it was on Friday when Mrs K. sent her to Dr Storer; but on cross examination she says distinctly that the shop was first opened on Wednesday, that it was that day she first heard the rumors, that she car- ried them directly to Mrs Kinney and from her went directly to Dr. Storer. These facts are much more satisfactory, in arriving at conclu- sions, than the probably mistaken recollections of Dr Storer, as to the day ol the interview. But whatever you shall finally fix upon as the day of this interview with Dr. Storer, we shall, I am confident be able to satisfy you that the rumors did oxist, and that Mrs Kinney had heard of thein, when 6he first asked for that certificate. The second fact that m^y be relied on, under the head of strange and unaccountable conduct, will be that Mrs Kinney did not communicate to Miss Almira Collins, the fact that the Doctors had found poison in the stomach of the deceased; that after having had one confidential conversa- tion with Mi«s Collins before, she did not com- municate this fact to her, and from this you will be called upon to infer guilt. But why tell it to that lady? Who w.is Miss Collins r A stran- 4 ger to Mrs K. imported into her acquaintance within a week. If therefore, she had any grounds for apprehension when Dr Storer told her of the poison, Miss Collins was the last per- son to whom she would communicate it, at that time. But there was a still deeper reason why she did not communicate it, than the length of their acquaintance. There was lurking in her own heart a teluctant suspicion that her hus band had committed suicide. Brooding over this painful and distressing thought, is it natural that this wife who had from first to last covered up his frailties from the world, with all the dili- gence of affection, should, when she learned a fact that brought a crushing confirmation of her doubts, have told it to a young woman whom she had known so short a time ? To my mind, it is wholly unnatural; and when I look at this matter in connection with her desire to have the death certified as a case of cholera, I see nothing that is not rationally explicable with ber entire innocence. But it is said,she did afterwards admit to Miss Collins what the Doctors had told her. How and when ? Miss Collins then knew of it from Dr Storer. She first spoke of it on this occa- sion to Mrs Kinney. The relations of things and of the parties were totally different. The fountains ot feeling were not voluntarily open- ed. They were touched by the hand of another, and at the slightest touch the tremulous waters of grief gushed out. Then came that remark- able scene, which more than any thing else proves the mingled agony of grief and suspicion of suicide with which her heart was torn, until it burst into the ejaculation, "Oh, that God would show the mystery, why it is that George has done this ! ' Such an exclamation was perfectly natural, if we suppose the deceased to have died by suicide, and not murder. So far from being extraordin- ary, on the supposition of suicide it was a na- tural exclamation of the wife, not volunteered in a confidential conversation, but brought forth by the communication from Miss Collins, that she had heard the fact of poison having been found. How much more r.atural and charitable to attribute this exclamation to supposed suicide, as the motive, than to murder, and that by a wife who is not proved by a single witness to have ever evince dought but affection and devotion to her husband, to the last moment ofhis existence. In further explanation of this and other cir- cumstances drawn from the conduct of the pri- soner, we shall prove that *he deceased was a ruined man, and bv his own acts. That the de- clarations of the wife as to his habits of gambling and dissipation, were sadly true, and that in all probability, by his own statements, it brought him to a violent death by his own hand. We shall distinctly show that he was beset by a terrible habit of gambling ; that it preyed upon his conscience and exerted a tyrannical ontrol over his belter feelings; and with the light thus thrown upon the case, you will be called on to explain for yourselves, the circumstances that have been distorted by suspicion, rumor and prejudice, into a charge ot murder, against the 26 wife. I ask you, gentlemen, to hear and weigh this evidence, as it ought to be weighed, in a scale where is suspended the issue of life and death to the accused ; to look at human nature as it ought to be viewed, with no extravagant theories, but with a knowledge of its workings and its sufferings ; to look at the whole matter naturally, in connexion with the fact that no cause ot quarrel, no dissension or difference ex- isted between the two during the life ef the hus- band, and that they never spoke of each other in life, but in terms of kindness and affection. I ask you to look at her conduct, in its most nat- ural light; upon this wife, beyond all question attached to her husband, distressed by suspi- cions of his violent death, anxious to conceal his faults, doubting as to the cause of that death ; surrounded by rumors and Vague surmises; and then say whether all these circumstances are not consistent with the supposition of sui- cide, as the cause of the death. 2. The second material circumstance in the chain of evidence relied on to convict the accu- seed, is the supposed sickness of Mr. Goodwin, from tasting of the sage tea. I say supposed sickness from that cause, because he does not himself directly swear to it, and no where as- signs that as the cause. Whether he mentioned the sickness to Dr. Snow or not, in his first in- terview with bim, which remains in doubt, it is certain that he did not allude to the sediment which ne now swears he saw in the bowl. He was late, in naming the ssge tea as connected with his sickness, and it was not until Mrs Kin- ney had gone out of town, and he was pressed upon the subject. But look at this remarkable fact, that this young man, who leaves it to be surmized by in- ference that the sage tea caused his sickness, remained on perfect terms of friendship with the prisoner, procured tickets for her journey to Vermont, put her into the cars, and bid her God speed on the way ! when all the time he must have known that if it was true that she had put poison into that tea, she had deliberately perilled his life by poison, as well as murdered her hus- band. Goodwin's supposed sediment is another link of this circumstantial evidence. Well, gentle- men, there might have been sediment in that tea, or there might not. It might have had one origin or it might have had another Is there anything satisfactory in this evidence ? But you are trying a human being on the issue of life, and you will apply all the facts that are to lead to the forfeiture of that life to the laws, with the extremest caution. Thisyoung man thinks he saw a white sediment in the tea, and yet he never said a word about it in his testimony, un- der oath, before the Coroner's inquest. He states this distinctly, and we have the fact that even after he supposed the man had died of poison administered in that tea by the wife, yet he had never said a word of the sediment, or breathed it to a human oeing, and he tells you now that he nad no particular motive in looking at it; that he set the bowl down upon the bureau and nev- er examined it at all, and all this haDpeniug in the evening, by candle light; and so little im- pression did it make upon him, that when coii- versing with Dr. Snow upd'rTMr. Kinney'sdeatli, and the rumors of poisoniBg, he never alluded to this supposed sediment. Can you reconcile this with any proof now, as to the existence or nature of that sediment ? The whole town was rife with the rumors; Goodwin meets Dr. Snow ; they converse of the death, freely and fully, and he never says a syllable to him of the sediment. How are you going to dispose of this testimony but by supposing that he saw what might be sugar as well as anything else, or that he saw any- thing else as well as sugar ? Can yon say that this testimony is entitled to any consideration in a chain of evidence to con- vict of a capital offence ? Another fact the government will probably rely on is the purchase of arsenic at Dr Mead's. It is worth while to see how this comes to be incorporated into the case. Some person, at some time purchased arsenic at an apothecary'i shop in South Boston. How came it into this case ? It seems that this Dr Hildreth, of whom we know nothing except that he is inciting this prosecution here and there, and of whom the pr soner says, he is her most bitter enemy, went to Mr Mead's store to inquire if any one had purchased arsenic. It seems that the fact of one or rather two women purchasing arsenic, came up among the rumors of the day, and Dr Hildreth started upon the scent. But what light does it throw upon the case ? Beyond the mere act of purchasing arsenic, bv some persons unknown, it has no no connexion with this trial. By no efforts or experiments can they trace this purchase to the prisoner. It turns up, by the inquiry of Br Hildreth at Dr Mead's. The young man swears he cannot identify the defendant. He has sworn so, before another tribunal, the inquest that sat upon the body, and he repeats that denial here, in the most positive terms. I therefore have a right distinctly to as- sume that the defendant was neither of those women who purchased arsenic. Matters being thus, the young man having sworn before three several tribunals* that he could not identify the prisoner as the person who purchased arsenic of him, an extraordinary stepis taken. The Attorney General directs Dr Mead to advertise for the women who purchased arsenic at his shop in August ; and thereupon, two days before this trial comes on, the handbill produced to Dr Mead, is issued by him. Now, why was this done ? When the clerk had sworn over and over again, that he could not identify the prisoner, why was not that enough ? But, as if for the purpose of eking out an argument, and to cut off the prisoner from the benefit of the ten thousand chances of its being somebody else, an attempt is made to exclude the probability of its having been a ny body but her. It is a pro- ceeding analogous to the effort made here yes- [*The Coroner's Jury, the Police Court and the Grand Jury.] 27 terday, to make the young man, their own wit- ness, admit that he did not know his own hand- writing, after he had, in answer to their own question, sworn that the word Poison on the blue paper was not written by him. But, if this handbill is going to be urged upon your attention, I pray you to observe how utter- ly unsafe it would be to rely on it a* excluding any thing. It calls upon the woman who pur- chased arsenic, to come forward, for the purpose of removing suspicion from Mrs Kinney ; and now that no one has come forward, does it fol- low that all other women have of necessity seen the handbill ? or that any woman who had pur- chased arsenic for a mischievous purpose, would make it known ? or that, if purchased for an honest purpose, the common reluctance to be made a witness, would not keep the purchaser away P Is the suspicion any the less removed from Mrs Kinney, than it was before ? There is no suspicion that can touch her, from all the facts that have occurred respecting the purchase of arsenic, after the clerk has virtually sworn that she is not the person. Another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, is the paper found in the house, mark- ed 'poison.' On this evidence the fact is obvi- ous that this paper contained no arsenic. It is not such paper as druggists use. But is it not to be supposed that if any one brought poison into the house, to commit murder, they would have destroyed the paper ? Why should a part of it be left ? And if any part was left, would it be likely to be the precise fragment that bore the fatal word ? It is certain that paper was not the vehicle in which the poison was conveyed to the deceased, even if you are satisfied that he took poison. This is shown by their own witness, Coroner Shute, who went all round the city, and could find no apothecary to identify the paper. This excludes the idea that it came from any druggist's shop in the city, and negatives the supposition that the poison which is brought into this case was ever contained in that paper. Perhaps too we may be able to suggest a prob- able account of this paper, but if we shall fail, from the want ot that omniscience, which we cannot command, in tracing human events, still it fails to touch us, from its utter disconnection with the prisoner. The burden of proof to ex- plain it, is not upon a<, but upon the govern- ment to fasten it upon the prisoner beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. The fifth circumstance relied upon by the Government, will be the evidence respecting the Bickness of the family on Thursday. Gentlemen, the great Commonwealth of Mas- sachusetts, by its official agents, is prosecuting for her life, under a capital accusation, one of its subjects, a feeble woman. Evidence is intro- duced of a subsequent transaction, and it is not very easy to see how it is to be urged in support of the indictment. Not a word is said in the opening, to Botify us of the point to which the ' evidence will be urged ; and now, when the ( Court has no power to compel a statement, and . this evidence is to be urged. The Attorne General is to follow my colleague, after he ha closed the prisoner's case, and then we are to learn, for the first time, to what this evidence is to be pressed. The course of the prosecution is most extraordinary. We are left to blunder on in conjecture, with no means of anticipating the argument, except such as our imaginations can devise. Whether it is to be urged as proof of a design in Mrs. Kinney to remove and destroy all these persons, who were at the breakfast that morning, in order to get rid of their testimony; or whether it is to be used as evidence of a dis- position in the prisoner to poison for the mere pleasure of it, we are in the dark. But let it be remembered that there were some connected with that breakfast whom she could have no fear of as witnesses. To what end should she seek to destroy Mrs. Varney's son ? To what is the government driven ? At the same time she was destroying these persons, she was attempting to take the life of the innocent child of Mrs. Var- ney. This must be the supposition if any is to be drawn, from this part of the evidence, and this is a degree of extravagance and improbabil- ity amounting to positive absurdity. But what- ever the object in introducing this testimony, we can show that the same effects were produc- ed on her, as upon the rest who eat of that food. Finally the gevernment has utterly failed to show you a motive. I agree that in point of law they are not bound to prove a motive, pro- vided you are satisfied upon this evidence, that the prisoner was the agent, and that no one else could have been. But where circumstances are doubtful in their application to the party ; mo- tive is an essential ingredient, and without it, the evidence must fail to convince. [Mr. C. cited to this point, 2 Starkie on Evi- dence. 521] Here is not only a total absence of motive, but the testimony of the Governmeut is uniform that the relations between Mrs. K. and her husband were kind and affectionate; thus re- pelling all reasonable supposition ot motive on her part to attempt the life of her husband. But gentlemen, I do not intend to leave the relations of this husband and wife upon the tes- timony of the Government. 1 shall bring be- fore you the scene of that last hour, when they parted, he to go to his final aecount, and she to be left to struggle with the rude world and to encounter this accusation. When you shall hear the simple and touching description of that scene, at it has been described to me, if there is a man who can then believe that this woman went through a series ot acts ot affection, with an art and" hypocrisy that surpass all hum n nature, he can believe more than 1 can. I be- lieve that human nature is bad enoHgh. But there are some things which it can not do.— The noble, the generous, the tender, the deep- ly pathetic, it can not counterfeit, in the midst ot murder and malice. I shall show you that *--ourt nas no power io compel a nuicuicm, ««« . ,.—--. — ...u.ti„k..nnH »li nthor we ask one of the clemency of the Attorney i this dying scene was pathetic b*y«nd ^11 other General, he refuses to tell us how and to what j description, than that of the simple narrative 28 of the facti'; and I shall then confidently claim your bel'pf that the union of such exhibitions of real feeling with deliberate murder, at one and the sane time, was never known to Nature or to Fiction. Why even Macbeth, who is rep- resented by the great master of all men's condi- tions, as a sort of tender and moralizing murder- er, and who had wept over the virtues and graces of the meek Duncan, whom he was about to slay, as he approaches the fatal chamber, marshalled by the dagger which his imagination had paint- ed on the air, lays aside all his tenderness; and bracing himself up for the occasion, he stands forth the murderer and nothing but the murder- er, and exclaims— Whiles I threat, he lives. Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives. I come now to the various suppositions which we shall suggest, as the modes in which this death might have been occasioned. Our first hypothesis is, 1. That the poison might have been adminis- tered by Bachelder,by design, from mal -practice* Whatever may have been this man s history or pretensions, here he was. He examined Mr. Kinney, and supposed he found secondary symp- toms of venereal disease. Now 1 do not think that the deceased had that disease ; but that Bachel- der made a mistake, or designedly made him be- lieve he had it. I shall show that, there *re many cutaneous diseases that may be mistaken for this. He had had the varioloid, and you will see when the regular physicians come to testify, that it requires a practiced eye to draw the line between the effects of the two. Kachelder gave the deceased medicine with reference to this disease. Ho says he gave him a cathartic pill. 1 shall shew you he has not been uniform in his statement. That he has said the first thing he gave was what he is pleased lo call his bowel pill. We shall prove that he re- fused to disclose the ingredients of that bowel pill, of which he claims to be the inventor, and ' that he has carefully kept the ingredients of that wonderful quack medicine a secret. We shall also prove that arsenic is administered internal- ly for the venereal disease; that Bachelder has admitted he had used arsenic in his medicines, and that he has given a very different account to two gentlemen, as to the kind of medicine he prescribed for the deceased. We shall further prove that arsenic is a cumulative poison, and may be safely given to a certain point, but if carried beyond that, it passes off in a wrong direction, and destroys life. This goes to account for Kinney'sappearance, until Saturday, when the last dose was given, the cup run over, and the man was destroyed. But it is not material whether Kinney had the disease or not. Whether Ba(,belder was mistaken or not, it leaves the inquiry whether arsenic was not in that bowel pill, or in some of his other medicines. [ * The learned counsel has requested us to state that, by this position, was meant, not that Bachelder designed to destroy life, but that he might have used arsenic, knowingly, in bis medicines, to effect the cure which tM-usderteekv Rep.] 2. Our second hypothesis will be that the ar- " senic might hare been administered by Bachelder, unconsciously, by accident. The poison might have been given in the medicine administered eaily in the week, or in some of the other medicines which he gave on Saturday evening. He tells you that he now has none of that catbai tic pill. What did that con- tain? Islhe supposition that it contained ar- ' senic without the knowledge of Bachelder less rational than that a wife, without motive, should ' poison a husband she seemed devoted to, to the last ? Then as to the powders. They were suppos- ed to be an imitation of Dovers powders, and yet by some accident, arsenic may have got into them, from the resemblance of that poison to other ingredients. Such a supposition is not only not impossible, but by no means improbable. We shall show by unexceptionable testimony, by a person of great experience, that the danger of using arsenic by mistake for some other white powder, is very great. 3. The arsenic may never have been in the deceased at all, but may have been introduced into the contents of the stomach, by aceident, since the contents were removed from the body. The symptoms were identical with those of cholera. The physicians treated the case as cholera down to the death, and the post mortem examination. Are, you satisfied that it might not have been introduced there by accident.— The contents of the stomach are put into a bot tie that comes out of Goodwin's paint shop?— You know not what its contents had been You are told by the witness that as a painter he had a pigment in his shop, (King's yellow) which we shall show contains arsenic. [On referring to the Chief Justice's notes, it appeared that the bottle was got at Mr Goodwin's boarding-house, and not at the shop] Nevertheless, you have only to bear in mind that you are not to call upon us to fatisfy you how all these circumstances might have happen- ed. The Government must show that by none of these means could the deceased have come to his death. 4. The arsenic, if it was the real cause of death, might have been taken by the deceased, to destroy his own life, obtaining it from Bachelder, or from some one else. We shall show that the deceased "Was a ru- ined man ; ruined hy that vice which of all oth- ers leads directly to self-destruction—Gambling. This will be proved to you is the cause or mo- tive to commit the act. We shall further show that he was utterly insolvent in his business, «nd ihat the idea of his having a more profitable job, or being in better prospects than usual, is i a mere delusion. Gentlemen, it gives me unaffected pain, to be obliged to make these disclosures. I cannot but remember in whose behalf I am compelled to make them. 1 cannot but remember that 1 stand here to speak for a wife of the vices of a husband, and that she has ever locked those failings in her heart, until a cruel and bit*er suspicion has driven her to reverse the very 29 course of human affection. I cannot but think too of those relatives of his, who are faraway in the green home of his youth, and who have lit- tle suspected the truth of his more recent his- tory. Alas! how should they know the dark temptations, the snares and dangers which be- set men in a great city, while Along the eool sequestered vale of life, They keep the noiseless tenor of their way. Tbey cannot realize the belief that he was wea- ry of his life. But it is tiue. This man, with a tempeiament subject to melancholy, had run through much of life's experience, and felt th"»t it was of liltle worth. He had seen much of the world, for a person of his condition ; he had been at times somewhat of a wanderer; and at the period of his aeath, he was a man who had nearly passed the climacteric of life, in years, aad had quite passed it in that feeling and ex- perience of its worthlessness, which seems so be the fate of certain minds. Upon such a charac- ter, the habit of gaming had fastened itself with a perfect tyranny We shall also show you, that the deceased en- tertained and expressed the intention of self-de- struction. By this I do not mean an intention to commit this particular act. I use the word in a legal sense, to indicate that the idea of suicide had long been familiar to his mind, and had been manifested by repeated declarations to the ef- fect that he might at some time take his own life. These, gentlemen, are the main grounds on which we (shall rest the defence, and with these, nay without them at all, upon the testimony of the Government alone without a word of defence, we confidently look for an acquital; an acquital, not only from crime, but from unjust suspicion; and when that acquital is reached here, it is to be, hoped that the community will do something to repair the wrongs and injustice it has inflicted upon this unfortunate woman. WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENCE. Dr Jacob Bigelow. Was called to the post mortem examination of the deceased, and his on- ly knowledge of the case arises from that circum- stance and the visit. When I arrived at the house, he was evident- ly in the last extremities. His extremities and also tongue cold, his hands livid and covered with a phlegmy perspiration. His pulse feeble. He complained of a burning pain at the stom- ach and universal distress. I was shown a large amount of fluid said to have been discharged from him. I was satisfied at once, that the case was hopeless, and 1 remarked to Dr Storer that the case resembled cholera, and a post mor- tem examination would be very desirable, to set- tle that question. In the afternoon of the same day I attended the post mortem examination with Drs Storer and Jackson, and some others. On opening the stomach a redness was found and several large ecchymosis, or dark spots. Dr Jackson suggest- ed a suspicion of poison upon this, and the con- tents of the stomach were taken out for future chemical examination. The whole intestine was found to be clear, as if washed out, and des- titute of odor. There were also marks of disease in the rectum. After this, I lost sight of the case, and have had no personal knowledge of it since. I was informed at the house, that an irregular practi- tioner had been in attendance, in the first stages of the patient. Some medicines were produced by Dr. Storer, as being the medicines left by that practitioner. I think I saw them at the first visit during life. Of their composition I know nothing. They were powders, one of which might have weighed from 6 to 10 grains. On tasting them I thought they resembled Do- ver's powders. I could not definitely characterize those powders. Certainly not, at this moment. There might have been sufficient arsenic in one of these powders to destroy life, and yet prob- ably not have been susceptible to the taste. Be- ing asked if arsenic is used in a particular dis ease, as a remedy— The Attorney General objected that the wit- ness, Bacheldor, had testified there was no ar- senic in those powders, and it was not compe- tent to contradict that, by this indirect mode of shewing that arsenic might be used in such a disease. Chief Justice. In the present stage, we think it competent, as tending to show that in select- ing medicine for this particular case, there might have been medicine selected containing arsenic, if that bean ingredient of such medicines. Witness. Arsenic is sometimes used as a rem- edy in such cases, and is mentioned as such, by authorities. The most common form of its use is solution. Sometimes it is administered in pills, by incorporating it with some comparative inert substance. It has sometimes been eombined with black pepper, and sometimes with other vegetable powder. Arsenic, I think is a cumulative poi- son, the effect of which accumulates the longer it is taken, so that in the end a different result is produced, than was intended on its first use. The extravasations in the inner coat of the stomach, I thing are more generally observed in cases of poison, buc have been traced in cholera, yellow fever, typhoia and small pox. It is not exclusive to poison. Mrs Kinney was present during my first visit. I remember but one observation, and that was upon a person entering the room who was sup- posed by Dr. Storer to be the empyrick. He ad- vised her not to give to her husband medicines prescribed by him, and she replied it was not he, but-another person of the same name. Her manner was agitated somewhat, voice slight and tremulous. A common case of poisoning by arsenic, often has a resemblance to death by cholera, a coinci- dence that has been noticed by writers of high authority. In both there occur distress and burning pain in the stomach—with nausea, faintness and 30 sinking, great prostration of strength. In both there occur coldness ef the extremities, livid color, clammy sweats and feeble and hardly per- ceptible pulse. In both there is great thirst.— These are occurrences in a common case of ei- ther disase, but there are exceptional cases. In cholera there is profuse and exhausting diar- rhoea, and so in some, but not all cases of death by poison. In the post mortem appearances there are often the same washed and clean ap- pearance of the whole intestinal canal. A re- markable symptom of post mortuary spasms is common to both, and was observed in the case of Mr. Kinney. The Court here adjourned till afternoon. Wednesday Afternoon. Dr. Jacob Bigelow resumed. The blue plil is composed of mercury in a state of oxidation— arsenic has been used in a great variety of com- plaints, I think most used in intermittent fevers in England and France. It is used in periodical headaches ; it is frequently used in chronic or obstinate cutaneous diseases, and it is detected in various quack medicines that have currency and have acquired a reputation in the cure of these complaints. And, among the rest, is Swaim's Panacea, according to the testimony of various chemists. The secondary forms of syphilis are those which occur after primary symptoms in cases imperfectly cured. Am not prepared to state the longest time after which they may occur ; it may be a month, and in some cases is supposed to be many months ; secondary symptoms may reappear for years. I know of no experiments that would decide the question as to what time is required for arsenic to dissolve in the juices of the stomach. White arsenic being a substance difficult of solution, it might remain in the sto- mach undissolved for twenty-four hours. The more liquid taken into the stomach, the more ar- senic would be dissolved ; the weight of the ar- senic would be an impediment to its being dis- charged from the system. I am a member of the Mass. Medical Society. I have never had personal knowledge of Dr. Bachelder ; never heard of him as a practitioner except in this case. Mr: Parker objects to this form of evidence ; must be proved by the record, whether Dr. Bachelder is a member or not. Cross examined. Have known of no case of cholera for several years. Had heard of none at the lime of this post mortem examination ; my interest was excited in this case from the sup- position that this might be a case of the re-ap- pearance of that dormant disease. I believe the mata died of arsenic. There were symptoms to indicate it, and from learning that arsenic was found in the stomach, the proof that he died of arsenic was satisfactory to me in the highest degree. I am not able to say whether the pow- der we saw was or was not Dover powder. I did not identify either of its component parts; I cannot say they were not Dover powders ; 1 sug- gested a doubt, probably from the predominance of opium. Opium is a component part of Dover powder. It did not excite my interest suf- ficiently to make a thorough examination ; I have no direct evidence nor direct ground for believing that arsenic was in the powder ; I have no reason to believe there was arsenic in the powder ; it was possible there was. In the diseases referred to, arsenic is given in small quantities not exceeding the lbth of a grain; same amount of the substance adminis- tered three times in '21 hours. Arsenic is ohemically dissolved in a liqnid, and is kept in the shops, as an arsenic solution. I am very confident that such indications as ap- peared in the case of Mr Kinney, could not have been the result of arsenic taken in the manner above described. There is no arsenic in the blue pill. In a dose which would eontain from a 20th to a 16th of a grain, arsenic would be given in the cases in which I have mentioned. Generally a dose of arsenic would begin to oper- ate in half an hour, sometimes in a few minutes. Cases are known of its not appearing under four hours, particularly if sleep has intervened. A second dose would expedite the effect of the first. I have not been able to perceive any taste in ar- senic. Some authors say it has no taste, and others that after it has remained long on the tongue, it is astringent and sweet. I think it an old opinion, not well sustained, that it is sweet. There is no danger in tasting small quantities, if not swallowed, and carefully removed from the mouth. Henry Bachelder called. Resides at Beverly. Lived the last year in Boston. Previous to that, for thirteen years in Lowell. Have known Mrs Kinney six years. Was a member of Mr Free- man's church, her former husband. I was present at the death of Mr Kinney.— My wife was sent for, with a horse and chaise, but eould not go. Being acquainted with Mrs Kinney, I rather volunteered my services and went. I met Mrs Kenney up stairs, in her house, conversing with two gentlemen. Found Mr Kenney in a chair. He said he was very sick. I asked him how long he had been sick. He said he had been complaining something like a fortnight. Said he had been troubled with diorrhoea, and it had terminated in cholera mor- bus. I had some conversation as to his case, whether he felt he was a dying man. He said he felt so, unless he got relief. Asked him if he realized his situation and he said he did. Mrs Kenney came in. He called for some mix- ture of camphor, and drank it. She asked how he felt. He wished to know the opinion of the physicians, whether they thought he must die. She told him it was their opinion. He Baid he was aware of it unless relieved. Mrs. K. asked him ifhe wished to see his friends, nam- ing them. He said yes, but they could not probably get there before he should be dead. Mrs. K sent some person to call his friends. Soon after, Mr. K. took his wife by the hand and said, "Hannah, you have been a good wo- man to me." Mrs. K. wept. He then turned to the little girl, Dorcas, and baid, will you be a good girl to your mother. She said yes. After 31 that he Baid, my dear where is it best for me to be buried. She said if he had any particular de- sire, she would attend to it. He dropped it then and said no matter where my bones are laid. In a minute he asked if he had better be buried un- der arms ; the company, he said, he supposed would turn out; but, said he, you will act your pleasure. p*** Recollect no farther conversation till he was taken with extreme distres. I supposed morti- fication had taken place. I assisted in placing him on the bed, at his request, and his wife ap- plied camphor to his bowels, by his wish. He got up and sat in his chair again and was some relieved. Not long after he was taken with another turn of distress, and got on the bed again. Wished to sit in his chair again, and was placed there. Mrs. Kinney spoke to him, and he was so indistinct in attempting to reply; I could not understand him. In two or three minutes his eyes were fixed. She spoke to him and he did not answer.— She then placed her mouth to his and said 'good by George.' He breathed three quarters of an hour, but remained senseless and died. His wife was there all the time. Throughout the whole of this scene I discovered nothing in Mrs K. but that she attended on him as a wife would in such circumstances, with tenderness and af- fection. I remained about an honr, was reques- ted to assist in laying him out. Half an hour after his death Dr. Storer came in—I asked him of what he died. The doctor said it was no doubt he had died of Asiatic cholera, and noticed his knees which were affected with spasmodic motion, which he said was one of the strongest evidences of Asiatic cholera. He wished me to notice how long this continued. It continued three quarters of an hour. 1 was not at the funeral. The sabbath evening that he died I called and saw Mrs Ken- ney. Asked when he was to be buried—discov- ered nothing out of the way in her manner.— Before Mr. Kinney's death I attempted to pray, at his request. Dorcas, the little girl present, was not Mr. Kinney's child, was Mrs Kinney's by her first husband. Cross-examined. I went there the motning he died, about 7 o'clock, Was there perhaps three hours. I think he died about the meeting hour. The prayer was made an hour or more before. His request was, will you pray with me. Mrs K. suggested it to him. I am not a deacon of a church but have been chosen,and have been called such. Do not recollect that Mrs K. alluded to the cause of his sickness or said any thing about meeting in heaven. I noticed no want of attention on her part. In Chief. Have seen Mrs K. frequently at Lowell. Had not seen her, after 1 removed to Boston, till the death of her hnsband. Willard C. Lane. Resides in town. Am a saddler Was acquainted with Mr and Mrs Kinney. Had known him fifteen years. He served his time at Windsor, Vt. where I first knew him. Have seen him very often, his wife occasionally. Never heard him speak of his wife but in the kindest terms. Never heard her speak of him till since his death. Never heard any complaint of him from her. I was at the house Monday morning after, his death. I saw the notice of his death in the paper, and went immediately to (lie house. Went in without ringing the bell. Mrs K. was alone, in tears. She said, " Oh, dear, George is gone!' I remained a few mo* ments. A lady came in and said some gentlemen wished to see her. She requested them to walk up stairs. And I went up. Found Mr Darling and another. As I was going away, she asked me if I wished to see the body. I went in and saw it. I then left. At 3 o'clock Mr Barnes came with a request that I would call at Mrs Kinney's. I went with Mr Charles H. Johonnet. Saw Mrs K. as to the arrangements for the funeral. She said Mr Barnes had attended to it, but she did not know what he had done. She gave me the names of the mourners. ,1 took the direction in the arrangements for the funeral, Mr Johannet went in the carriage with Mrs K. by my request Her manner was natural, and like others under such bereavement. She stopped, at my wish, while the salutes were fired over the grave. I went to the house, and there took leave of her. A number of persons were in the room. Dur- ing the prayer at the funeral, I observed her with her handkerchief to her face, and I presume weeping. I next saw her a week after. Had but little conversation with her. Mr Riley was present. When I went out she came down stairs, wept bitterly, and told me what Dr Storer had told her of finding arsenic in her husband's stomach. Do not recollect when she said Dr S. told her. I had heard of the rumors before this, and said little then, intending in the evening to see her. I went to see her, and then told her all the reports I had heard about Mj Kinney and Mr Freeman. I advised her to say nothing and to go into the country. She thought it would notbe right for her to go. I told her I did not know but she would be arrested ; that I did not wish her to go to prevent this, or evade justice, but because she could not bear what she would hear. I told her she might be arrested before I advised her to go into the country. She wept much. I sat directly before her, and looked her in the face to see if I could discover any thing. I did not believe the reports, but wished to see if I could discover any thing. She did not appear alarmed. She sent for me the next day and asked me if I was of the same mind as to her going into the country. I was. She said she had been advised ,so by others, aud would go. This was Wednesday, and she wenton Friday. I saw Dr. Storer Tuesday night; he said he first thought he died of cholera, but that arsenic was found in his stomach. He said he had asked for an examina- tion and she was as willing as any one would be under like circumstances. That same Tuesday evening Mr. Johonnet and mysplf both advised her to go into the country ; I saw her when she came back in the stage at the Post office; Mr Clapp asked me to come to his house. I went there and saw her; nothing of any con- sequence was said. 1 last saw Mr Kinney on the Thursday before his death ; he said he was unwell ; I told him he would be so, if he staid out late of nights ; I asked him if his wife complained ; no, he said, he never saw a scowl on her face in his life. I met Mr Danforth a fortnight after Mr Kinney's death ; we were talking on this matter, and I proposed to call at Dr Harrington's office and see if Kinney had called there; we went; inquired for Dr. Bachelder and saw him. He said he had administer- ed medicine to Mr Kinney for the venereal disease.— He said he was sure it was that; he said he gave him a venereal pill and powder; Dr H. came to the door with a bottle, and asked if those were the pills; he said ves, and that was all he gave except the powders. Dr. Harrington asked if the pills were all he gave him; he said yes, except the powders, at least I understood it so; I am quite confident he said so. I thought Bachelder appeared some excited ; he asked my motive ; I told him only to ascertain if Mr K. was diseased or not. Cress Examined. At the fnneral I did not hear her spoken of or pointed out as a murderer, neither before or after the funeral. I never heard her say that she was 32 pointed out as such at the funeral. If it had taken place, I do not think I should have been likely to hear it. She never mentioned to me any waut of respect at the funeral. I went to Dr Storer of my own motion. I told Mrs K. I was going. I went for my own satis- faction. I told her so, and that I would call when I came back I do not remember that she told me Dr, Storer had said he died of poison. Had she done so 1 should have gone to see him. I wished to learn an- other fact, and that was if Kinney was diseased. I asked Dr Storer and he said he could not tell. I did not tell this to Mrs Kinney. She asked me if Dr S. had said any thing more and I said there was one oth- er inquiry but it was of no consequence. When 1 saw Dr Bachelder he did not say that he gave a blue pill, but a venereal pill. I so corrected myself in the preceding examination. He said noth- ing of blue pills or bowel pills, and nothing of Dover's powders, but a powder, simple powder. Mrs K. never complained to me of her husband. I did not know his habits of late. I saw him intoxicated once last spring in the evening, in the street. I met him by accident. I have heard him say he played for money, within a year. I have heard him say that it took him a number of days to get over it when he had been on a hard train. Incline to think it was last spring he said this. As to his temperament, a very little thing would el- evate him, and a trifle press him down; 1 have seen him many times when gloomy; his age was from 40 to 45. [Air Parker; it is agreed that his age was 39 at his death.] Should think him a man of courage, but never saw it tried; was not apt to talk about his private af- fairs; I knew Mrs K. a year before she married Mr K. [This witness was very clear and distinct in his testimo- ny-] Charles H. Johonnet. Have known Kinney since he was a small boy. and Mrs K. six or seven years. Was present at his death, and relates the circumstances as the preceding witness, Deacon Bachelder did.— Describes Mrs Kinney's manner at that and other times as the former witnesses have; was at the funeral and went in the carriage with her; heard the reports of the poisoning on Tuesday; told them to her on Wednes- day or Thursday; I advised her to go into the coun- try, and perhaps these rumors would die away; she thought of going on Thursday, but did not go till Fri- day week after the death; do not know any thing in particular as to his temperament; his moral character was pretty good; have heard him speak of gaming himself; knew him first at Windsor Vermont; the fur- niture of .Mr Kinney's house was mortgaged. Cross Examined. Was often in Kinney's shop; had the means of knowing his habits; his gaming that he spoke of I understood as being out of nights, playing; a month or six weeks before he died, he told me so; nad also told me so some time before; have seen him when he had drank too much, not very frequently; can't say when or how long before his death. Samuel Dearborn, was partially acquainted with Mr Kinney; knew Mrs K. when she lived at Lowell; was at her house the next .Monday after the funeral, with my wife; noticed nothing remarkable; conversed on ihe death of her husband Not cross examined. Henry Danfnrt.fi. Rosides now in Vermont; three weeks ago lived in this city; worked for Mr Kinney last July: was in town when he died, and was at his funeral; I went to see Dr Batchelder with Mr Lane, to learn if Mr Kinney was diseased; he said he was, with venere- al; said he gave him pills and powders; and that was all; a man brought pills into the room and said they were the same kind; don't recollect any other conver- sation. Mr Kinney gamed sometimes; I have seen it, and seen him lose money at play; have heard him say— Mr Austin objected to any testimony as to what the deceased man had said of his gambling or habits, to prove that fact, it being hearsay. Mr Dexter thought the stale of the case made this evidence a matter of necessity. It was designed to show probable grounds of his death, and his own ad- missions are the strougest evidence of the facts. Chief Justice. It appears to the Court that it is admissible. It is not dying declarations and is not put upon that ground. But here is a case where a party is speaking of himself, and it comes in with refereuce to the motives of his actions__ Such as if he had declared his intention to take poison. In connexion with the act of his de- cease, it is admissible. Mr Parker. Will the Court fix the limit how far back it shall go ? Chief Justice. That goes to its credibility:— No limit can be fixed. Witness. Had heard him say he had lost ten dollars the night before ; this was last summer. Have seen him play loo at a public house and lose money. This has happened more than once. Have no acquantance with Mrs Kinney. Work- ed with Mr K. in his shop from March till July last. Cross examined. Have been at convivial par- ties with him. Cannot say if five, ten or forty times, I have seen him play. It was before I worked with him. It was at a public house in Federal street—the game was limited I should think—to ninepence a corner. Have seen him play two or three hours. He told me another night, I think last winter, that he had lost nine dollars. Never heard him speak of winning. Have known him play at ten pins for money. Never heard him say whether he lost or won, at ten pins. It was after supper at the Federal-st. House, that he played. He asked me to go and I went. Did not know that he belonged to an Independent Company. Five or seven supped there. Believe he was gay and cheerful in his disposition. In Chief. He never complained to me of his losses. Charles Remick. Had known Kinney three or four years. Resided with him and boarded at the same house, before he was married. Con- versed with him the Thursday before his death. He called at my place, corner of Haverhill and Causeway streets, a victualing cellar. He said he was unwell, and could not relish his food. Knowing his disposition, I told him it was all imaginary. He said no ; he should not live but a few days. He said after he got through with a job he had, he should give up business, and his wife give up business, and retire into the country ; go to Vermont; that his wife was un- well too. I had worked with Kinney, in the same shop, in this city. Knew of his gambling then. It was last winter. Should think it a habit grow- ing upon him. Have heard him speak of win- ning or lossing ten or fifteen dollars at a time Heard him speak of this more than once. Never heard him speak of his wife to say a word against her. Never heard her complain of him. Have been in the habit of going to his house since he was married. He was in embarrassed circum- stances when I was with him, in his employment He had old embarrassments from a former con- 39 cern. He has so told me. He was a benevolent, open-hearted man, fond of company and liked to go out to parties. He was quick in temper and quick over it A mm who was possessed of a good dsal of pride. H\ drank his liquor every day, and more than did him good in my opinion. Should think losing wjuld lead him to take an extra glass. Cross-examined. Should think his lossing was greater than his winnings. Have heard hiin say he should have mH his demands more promptly if he hid kept in the shop more. Think gaming called him off. Have known him play in the day time. In answer to Mr Parker. I am not a teeto- taller. My stand ird as to how much drink is good for a man, is that one glass is more than is good for me. His business was done as an agency. I sup- posed it to be so. Never knew any attachment of the stock in the store. He was absent from the shop more than he ought to have been. I j have known him to go off with men, and when • he came back, I was satisfied he had been gamb- ling. He generally paid off the hands. No fault to find. Sometimes it went over to next week. After calling several witnesses who did not an- swer, Mr Curtis sai4 he had eight or ten more, but they were not present. Edward L. Tucker was called and sworn. I reside in Lansinburg, N. Y. Formerly lived in Boston and was a short time partner with Geo. T. Kinney, in 1838, for about five months. I put in $400 into the businses. Kinney put in nothing. I do know the fact of his gambling. I last saw Mr K. the last day of last April. I conversed with him on the subject of his mis- fortunes caused by gambling. I had for a long time suspected him of gambling, and he ac- knowledged it to me. I discovered it by acci- dent at first. Was at a public supper and saw him gamble. I told him he was very foolish if nothiug more. It was while I was connected with him, from January to March of 1831). The habit eontinued all the time I was con- nected with him. I knew it by his acknowledge- ments to me. Never a week passed that I was with him that I did not converse with him upon it. I could always tell when he had peen gamb- ling by his appearance—melancholy and uneasy. I separated from him in April or first of May, 1839. Began with him in December 1838. I cannot tell how much he lost—I once lent him ten dollars, which he acknowledged he lost gamb- ling. I bought the stock and tools when I went in with him. (Produces the receipt. He used to tell me that his wife supported the family. I never took out one cent of the capital I put in, and never got one cent. Mr. Kinney told me last May tthat be had paid my bills and settied the company concerns. I found he had not paid my bills. I left the concern with him, —did not dissolve. I never directly asked him to pay me, but he said he would when he could. I never took a dollar out of the con- cern. Was not married then. In May last I saw Mr. Kinney, and introduced the subject some reports he had circulated of me. He said that the reason he had done it was that he was invol- ved, and unless he laid it to something else, they would break in upon him, and ru n him. He said he did gamble and could not help it and al- ways should. I asked him how he felt when he came out of these places. He said that he could not describe it; he had often felt in doubt whether to go home or to go and make way with himself. He repeated it. 'Yes, I have often been at a stand whether to go home to my wife, or to go and make way with myself.' I told him I was very sorry he was so far gone. He said, Tucker, so it is, and don't you be sur- prised at any time to hear I have made way with myself. When I asked hi in how he could do such things huns.df, and then lay them to me, he denied having charged me with gambling, and beggi'd my pardon for what he had said. He referred to a pirticular time when he did not come to the shop, and said he took laudanum enough that time to kill four men. He said if it had not been for his wife he did not kn >w what he should have done. Never knew any differ- ence between Mr aud Mrs Kinney. [Witness stated that he is a brother of Mr Tucker of the Tremont House, and that Mr Curtis (the coun- sel) had sent a message for him to Lansingbur_r, to attend this trial, lie gave his testimony with much clearness ; the cross-examination did not vary it.] Never was any difficulty between him and Kinney about ihe stoc.t he left in the concern. There was no money to be left. That was ex- pended in the concern. No one was present at the conversation 1 had with Mr Kinney. After I learned that Mrs. Kinney was charged with the murder, I wrote to Mr. Riley of this city, that I thought I could be of service to Mrs. Kinney. I alluded to this conversation in mv letter to Mr. Riley. I then thought that I could give my deposition, but was afterwards told I could not. Mr. Parker. You were not correctly inform- ed, there is an express Statute of this Common- wealth, allowing defendants to take depositions in criminal cases. Witness was promised his expenses if he would come here. They were to be paid not by Mrs. Kinney but by the Commonwealth. Has the letter of Mr. Curtis. His testimony has not been taken down in writing, since he came to the city. Saw Mrs. Kinney at the prison, and conversed with her. The Court ad'ourned 20 minutes past eight. Thursday Morning. Mr Curtis said the letter from Mr Tucker to Mr Riley alluded to in Mr Tucker's evidence last night, had been called for and he was able to produce it. Letter produced and read. It is dated at Lansingburg, N. Y., Oct. 2, 1840, and illudes to a communication witness had with Mr Kinney. Dr Enoch Hale sworn. Lives in Boston.— The well water of Boston contains lime and will leave a sediment in the bottom of the vessel when boiled and drained off. Thinks the well M Water throughout the city generally will pro- duce the sed'ment when boiled. Have this knowledge only of my own well in West street, and of my brother's in Franklin street. The sediment varies in some cases in quantity. The sediment would roll about when the vessel is turned. Was not surprised that the family of Mrs K. was sick after eating cucumbers &c. for break- fast as is stated. Cross-Examined. Eating moderately would have made a difference. Cucumbers are un- wholesome. The extent ot the sickness would depend on a previous state of the stomach. In the case af vomiting, &c. as represented in this instance would have excited my suspicions. Thinks in 99 cases ont of a 100 there will be a sediment after boiling the water. Don't sup- pose a single pint of water would produce a per- cpptible quantity of sediment. The water pro- duces incrustation—generally in the close parts of the vessel. The water being made into tea would make some difference. In drinking a pint of water after boiling, a person would not get the whole of this substance which the water previously contained. Ebenezer Smith, Jr Is the administrator of the estate of K'nney. The estate would pay him after paying the charges on the estate. The property of his shop, and Mrs. K.'s on Brom- field street, was sold at auction. Her property was mortgaged. The mortgage was paid, and $80 or !MJ left. The stock of Mrs. K. went into thegenenl account. Have rendered my ac- account, and it has been settled. The furni- ture of Mr. Kinney's house was mortgaged for more than it was worth. It was mortgaged for money loaned to Mr. Kinney. Mrs. Kinney's stock was invoiced tome for $700. It brought $278. Sally Ridtr. Boards at 76 Tremont-street. Is a dress-maker, and does business on Green-st. Have known Mrs. Kinney since April last. Was boarding in Washington street at the time of Mr. Kinney's death. Saw Mrs Kinney the next Monday evening after his death. Mrs. K. then complained of beiug unwell. Was at her house the Thursday following. Mrs. Kinney and Miss Collins were sick. Miss C. quite sick. They both vomited. I madw some pena- royal tea, first for Miss C. and then for Mrs. Kinney. Mrs. K. vomited as soon as she drank the tea. Mrs. K. was on the bed. I went to let her know concerning a mourning dress. John Henshaw. Is a druggist. Am aware that mistakes happen in dealing out medicine. Have known them to take place. Have known poisonous drugs to be given out when milder medicine was called for. I am particularly care- ul. Boys are sometimes trusted to deal out medicine. Mrs. Sarah Goodsill. Have known Mrs. Kinney about 18 months—lived with her3 weeks in Marion street. Afterwards boarded with her. Left there in May last. There were dry herbs in an earthen pot, done up in a paper. The papers were broken. Mr. and Mrs. K. lived in perfect harmony. Never heard either say any thing against the other. Never heard either say any thing that indicated the estimate placed on ihe other. Doct. Ethan Buck—Is a member of the Mass. Medical Society. Lives in Hanover street. On Friday, 14th August, Mrs Varney called on me and told me she had been sick. She said it was owing to what she had eaten for breakfast. She had eaten encumbers and apple sauce. Have known cucumbers to produce the kind of sick- ness she described. 1 asked her if she had any reason to suppose she had eaten any thing pois- onous. She said not. She exhibited no appear ance of having been poisoned. I have never seen a case of poison from arsenic. I had always supposed arsenic had a sweet taste. Tried it last night. Put some en my tongue. It pri-iiH'i d a metallic sensation, and burnt my tongue*, li had no such taste. Saw a case of the cholera about a month after Mr Kinney's death. In the cross-examination, witness corrected himself by saying he bad seen cases of poison by arsenic. Earnest H. Lheeth.nn Is a designer, con- nected with the cal'uc "tinting. Was in Brom- field street on the *'•■ \ < I the funeral of Mr K. Heard rumors as lo tne cause of his death. The rumor was general. Being cross-examined, said lie got the rumor from one person wth whom he was talking. Thomas Ridley. Was in Bromfield street the day Geo. T. Kinney was buried. Heard the rumor that he came to his death by poison.— Heard no particular one accused. Heard it from an individual I was talking with. Cross-Examined. I stood by the Bromfield House. There was a great crow J. The mili- tary was out. Did not see the niourncis come out. Heard the remark about Mr K's having died by poison from one person. Albert G. Leach. I live in Franklin county, Mass. Married a sister of Airs Kinney. Have known Mrs K. four years. 1 was in town in February last, and saw Mr Kinney several times while I was here. Had conversations with him. Atone time Mr Kinney remarked to me when I was at his house, that if there was not a turn of the tide, or something new did not turn up he should have to go to the poor house, as he had not work ermurii to support his family. He asked tne when I sUnuM leave town. lie went to the closet at >' '.• >< k two canes, and pre- sented one to me and saiu, 'you use a cane, I believe. Take this, I may not have another op- portunity pf seeing you. Take this and keep it " His manner was rather uncommon, and attracted my attention. There was a great dif- ference in his appearance and temperament at different times. He was excentric. In my last visit to Mr K, he said he did not think much of the world. I asked him the reason, He said he thought but few people could be confided in, and that honest people were few and for be- tween. He spoke of his misfortunes as having been brought upon him by (he base management of others. He lived witli yvi led harmony with hi* wife. Have heaid tlicin apeak in high terms 33 of respect of each oth-r. \<>v.-r have heard ei- ther say any thing* othei wise Cross-Er.iin.neil. W m groin <• to Miine when I wa-i here in February I li/e I then in Sum- merset township, Me. vlr Knm-y's family con- sisted of hinmelf, his wile, aa I three children. The eldest 1(3 or 17 years old. Was acquainted with Mri K at LowjII before she wa3 married to Mr K. Mrs Hitchcock, l/'vesin Granville, Wadiing- ton county, N. Y. Have known Geo T. Kio- ney since 1820. Wasengiged to be married to him. Saw him in I <-\~> Mr Parker inquired whether rt waspiop'ir logo into an inquiry of Mr Kinney s conduct, <*fcc. at so remote a period. Mr Dexter. The object was to show tuat su- icide was habitual or fa.nilliar with Inw mind Witness. Have no letter containing a. decla- ration of the kind I have spoken of. He had told me that he had been deter.nitied to put an end to his existence but had been prevented from so doing. This was in 183"). As a rea- son he said in a letter he had been unfortunate and had lost his property, and i.^-.ome poor.— Since that time (five years last June) he said his life was a burden to him, and had no charms which bound him to earth, siy intimacy with him terminated in I82J or '30. A mutual sepa- ration. Mr K's temperament was irregular— sometimes cheerful, sometimes gloomy. He was excentric. Don't know Mrs K.— Never saw her till I came to this city. My tes- timony became known to her. I was sent for by a special messenger. Cross-Examined. My maiden name is Gear. Married to Mr. Hitchcock in 18:52. Mr. Kinney resided in Plainfield, Vt. when I became ac- quainted with him The engagement was form- ed in 1820 broken off in '29 or '30. When the engagement was broken off he lived in Boston. The separation was mutual. I first proposed it on account of his becoming dissipated, &c. I lived in Pennsylvania in 1835. Received a let- ter from him then. Had not corresponded with him for some years. I do not know the cause of his writing to me. He stated in this letter that he was gloomy and wished to write to some friend. I burnt up the letter immediately, and did not answer it. Four years ago I saw him in New York city. He called «on me in Church street. I did not send for him. He heard 1 was there. My hus- band was with me. I saw Mr. K. but twice from 1822 till the time the engagement was broken off- Under en- gagement about 9 years. « Coldridge Dewey. I married the sister of Mr. Hitchcock. Am cousin to the late Mr. Kinney. I reside in New York. Mrs. H. was at my house last fall. I heard the death of Mr K. spoken of, and asked Mrs. Hitchcock if she would go to Boston and testify in the case of Mrs. K. She thought she was not able to pay expenses. I wrote to Mrs. Kinney. My rea- son for writing to her was that I had known Mr. Kinney for a long time and thought he might have produced his own death. I received an answer to my letter. Mr. Kinney returned in 1828 from a four yesw voyage to the south I saw him on his return. He wis very m-ich changed. Wis g\iy.ay. He told me he had lost all his property in the voyage. Have seen him since his marriage with Mrs. Kinney. They lived in perfect liar- mony. Never heard him say any thing against his wife. Dr. Reuben Harrington. Dr. Bachelder came to my office in Endicot street in June la3t. Want- ed to enter into practice with me. He hid good letters. I entered into a copartnership contract with him. He was to tend the store. I had nothing to do with his nostrums. I had a conversation with him abont the death of Mr Kinney. He mentioned at one time, whether jestingly or not I cannot say, that he had killed one man. He said he had given him tome oflus bowel pills, and the man died the next day. I told the Dr. : it was wrong to make such remarks. Never | inquired of him as to tl»e ingredients of his bowel pills. With regard to the conversation relating to Mr. Kinney's death, be said he had I given nim a syphilitic pill. This pill is given j for the venereal disease. It is made by myself. ! Dr. B. does not make them. They are different j from the bowel pill. The Sundiy following the death ol Mr. Kin- ] ney, two gentlemen came into the office and in- quired for Dr. B. He was in the other room They went in there. I showed him the syphilit ic pills, and he said they were the same as he gave Mr Kinney. I have had conversations with Doct. B. about his mode of practice. He has told me he used arsenic and pokeroot in his com- positions and treatment. He said he used pow- erful medicines, which other doctors did not know how to use. I told him he must be aware it was dangerous, and was using edge-tools. Cross-examined. Dr. Bachelder asked me if I would put in the advertisements, the title of M. D. to his name. I told him I would if it belonged there. It was put in. I have recom- mended him as a good physician. Mr. Parker here read a certificate from Dr. Dana, signed 1823, certifying that Dr. B. had been regularly admitted as a student in the medi- cal department of Dartmouth College. A cata- logue of the same College was also shown of 1825, which was objected to being offered as tes- timony by Mr. Dexter. Ruled out. Witness. Makes four kind of pills, viz— Syphilitic, Cathartic, Stomach and Armigog Pills. Now uses arsenic only in cutaneous dis- eases. Nathan Pratt. Have seen Dr. Bachelder's bowel pills. Do not know the ingredients. I was unwell at one time and called on him. He gave me 6 pills, which he said were bowel pills. I took them home and took 3 of them at once, which came near killing me. It was in Novem- ber last. Dr. Bachelder told me when he gave me the pills that I was very sick. After taking the pills I was very sick at the stomach, and my bowels swelled so much that I could not button my pants by four inches. Cross-examined. Had not been very sick pro 80 vious. Was a little unwell. Had taken some medicine. Thought my system was petting out of order when 1 opplied to Dr. Bachelder. I took the pills after dinner hour. Had ate no dinner on that day. Ate no vegetables for breakfast. Cannot tell what I ate for breakfast. Dr. B. told n.e they were the bowel pills. He told me to take 2 at a dose and follow up. I took three, and no more after. I asked him fer medicine to cleanse my stomach. He relused to tell me what was in the pills. Addison Atery. I am a leather dealer in Hanover street. Was acquainted with Geo T. Kinney. Had dealings with him in ISoti and 7: sold him leather on credit several times. Wit- ness stated the several transactions he had with Mr. Kinney. The object of his testimony was to show that Mr. Kinney was a ruined man at the time of his death. Witness stated that in 1839, Mr. Kinney sent for him to come up to the jail in Leverett st. 1 went there and found him in the prison for a debt, as I understood, of about $60- He was then in debt to me, and I thought the best way was to bail him out. I did so. After this I had heard of out-standing debts against him, and advised him to take the benefit of' the act. Mr. Coolidgc. The jailor was sworn. Mr. Kinney was committed to thejaii on the 28th Sept. 1839, on an executicu in favor of Julia Langley, for $39 19. Thi'rsdav Afternoon. Frederick T. Brown—Is a druggist. Have weighed out 3 grains arsenic by desire of Mr. Dexter. Arsenic is shown to court and jury. It is pure arsenic. Gross-examined. Am a retail druggist. Re- tail price 9 pence per ounce ; that is the regular price. Three cents would purchase 120 grains. It is usually delivered without any enquiry. Generally marked 'arsenic poison.' Doct. J. A. Tibbctts for the prosecution. Re- sided in Boston in August last. Attended the post mortem examinations of Mr George T.Kin- ney. 1 took the bottle containing the stomach to Dr Jackson's office and left it on the table ; there was from 1-2 a pint to a pint. I made no examination of the contents of the bottle ; I saw it poured into the bottle It was at 1-2 past 4 o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday. No one in the office of Dr J. when I left the bottle there. Never saw the bottle again. I mentioned the examination after I went home to some one ; to no physician. Mrs. Abby Barrhi for the defence. Have no- ticed a sediment from East Boston sugar, like lime. Have noticed it in the bottom of tea; the sugar had all been dissolved. Have noticed the sediment frequently ; have not used the East Boston sugar for a year. Cross examined. Never noticed the sediment from any other sugar ; never have known any one made sick by it. Generally used the East Boston white sugar, before I gave it up on this account. Mr Brown recalled by the prosecution. Never have noticed sediment from East Boston sugar Have used it in crrrprsitims. Enst Bcstcn su- gar is not as stic i g ; s w hile l.riri.a, or d fcr this rii'scn 1 I..\e i.< 1 uud it osnirh. Il.eie is a sed'ment in all sugars mere cr lets. Ih.\e supposed lime and alluni were used in refining sugar. Mr. Parker objected to Ihis k nd of testimony en the ground that it had not Leen proved that East Boston sugar was used in the case in ques- tion. Mr. Dexter 6aid it was in the train of cir- cumstantial testimony which had been offered, and he offered it to meet the same kind of evi- dence which had been offered on the other side. Ruled proper by the Court. Wm. Aspinnall have used East Boston sugar. Have noticed a sediment from it. Charles D. Hildreth.—Have known Mrs K about If- months. She wrote me a letter on the Monday after Dr. Sterer told her that her hus- band died with poison. The note was written in pencil marks, and is as follows : Dr. Hildreth, Sir—I wish you would call on me this morning ; I want to relate to you some things which have been long buried deep in my breast. The time has come when I must tell them. If Dr. Sharp and Dr. Bolles would come with you, 1 should be very glad. Yours, respect- fully, HANNAH KINNEY. Sunday morning. I went with Rev. Dr. Bolles to see him. We stated that we had come in consequence of the note she had sent. There was no particular secret related to us—were there thirty or forty minutes. I went again with Mr. Driver. She said she saw an expression on my countenance and that of Dr. Bolles at the time of the first meeting which led her to alter her mind about the conversation. 1 saw her at the jail again. No allusions was made to the post-mortem ex- amination* Cross- Examined. Did not know that the paper marked " poison'.' was found in the house, till after the Coroner's Inquest. He made the in- quiry as to selling poison, at Dr Mead's in con- sequence of a suggestion of the Attorney Gen- eral, that it would be important to find who had purchased poison. Dr. Storer told him of the suspicion of poison, on Sunday, and ne suggest- ed a second examination. Told him that he had not done right, but should have taken the whole alimentary canal, as well as the stomach. Stephen Thayer is an Engine builder. Knew Mr. Kinney and employed him frequently to make hose. Have notemployed hi?n within two years. Do not know that he had a contract for work when he died. I saw him the Friday be- fore his death at his shop, ten o'clock in the fore- noon. I was there about 10 minutes. As I was going he said stop a minute. Put on his coat, and we went into a bar room. I asked him what he would take and he said milk. I asked if he did not drink. He said he had been un- well a fortnight and had left off, that he had drank brandy and then gin, but had found it did not agree with him. He said he had got a con- tract for hose for Lowell, and was doing pretty wall. 3T Cross-Examined. 1 was surprised that he took milk at the time. Have known him occa- sionally to drink. Never saw him intoxicated. Have not known much of his habits for two years past. Elias Thayer, (son of the former witness.)— Six weeks before Mr Kinney's death, went to Portsmouth with him on business, and return- ed. Saw no change in his disposition. Gen- erally in good spirits. Saw no gloom or melan- choly. Saw him after we returned a week be- fore his death. Observed no alteration in him at all. He was temperate during the journey. Cross-Examined. Was familiar with him in town. Apparently steady. Never knew him intoxicated. He took a little daily Never saw him when he had too much. I was never in his company only in the way of business. Never went with him' evenings. He never spoke to me of his private affairs or of having lost monoy. The last week I saw him he com- plained of having a pain in his stomach. I mentioned to him it might have been occasion- ed by his eating green apples on the journey.— He did not complain of illness on the journey. John Barnes recalled by Mr Parker. Knew Mr Tucker as the partner of Mr Kinney. I was in their employ. I knew when Mr Tucker went away. He was heard of three days after he was missing. We did not know what had become of him for those three days He told me when he went out of the shop, that he would go out and get some rivets. I expected him back in twenty minutes. He never came back. Mr Dexter objected that this was not contra- dicting the witness, but attempting to impeach him in a particular transaction. Waived. I saw him afterwards when he was in the citv in April. He was in the shop, picked out a trunk and saidl.e should like to have it. Mr K. was not in. Mr Tucker came into the shop again, and Mr Kinney was in. I heard him say to Mr K. that he was going to New York to be married. I saw Mr Tucker take the trunk, and take out some bills. 1 did not see him pay. He did not pay then. I only know what Mr Kinney told me, as to paying for the trunk. [The Court ruled out the declarations of Mr Kinney to the witness, as to the purchase of the trunk.] Did not hear Mr Tucker claim any money or balance of Kinney. I think the trunk is charg- ed to him. I am positive I read a dissolution of the partnership of Kinney & Tucker in the newspaper. I saw Mr Kinney write one. It was soon after the letter was received from Mr. Tucker, when he went away. Cross-Examined. They were in the front and I in the back shop, when the trunk was talked about. There is a thin partition and the door was open. 1 have heard Mr. Kinney speak of having been out of nights to suppers and playing cards. Never heard him speak of losses at gaming. Have been at Engine sup- pers where he played cards for money. I have not known so much of his going out for the past year. I thnk I have occasionally seen him with teo much liquor. Not very bad Can't say how often. The last two or three months before he died he appeared more attentive to the shop. Mr. Parker. This is as far as my instructions go, and I here close the case on the part of the Government, Mr. Tucker called again for the defence. 1 picked out the trunk, did not pay for it nor promise to pay. Took out no money. Mr. Barnes, was in the back shop. Mr. Kinney was particular that our affairs should not be heard by Mr. Barnes. He often cautioned mc on that subject. Mr. Kinney was indebted to me for all in the shop. I took the trunk in so much payment. I am positive that during the conversation in the shop the door to the back shop was closed. Mr. Kinney had repeat- edly told me that the things in the shop were all mine. Mr. Curtis, asked if witness had received a message from Mr. Kinney as his dying declara- tion. Objected to and ruled out by the Court as hearsay. I took the trunk because I believed I was en- titled to it. I did not intend to say that I took it as a present or on account. I asked him for it and took it. c Mr. Parker here called Dr. Bachelder to prove that he had received a Medical Degree at Han- over College. [Objected to, and ruled out by the Court, on the ground that a degree is conferred by a corporate body, and that it must be proved by record or diploma.] Mr Curtis said that a witness expected from Northampton, had not arrived. A piece ot evi- dence had accidentally come to their knowledge, as much other of the testimony had, and they were desirous of having it put in. A messenger had been immediately sent and the witness was expected to-day. The name of the witness is Charles C. Moore. The Chief Justice said that if any material evidence should come in, before the case was closed, it would be admitted. The Court held it in their discretion in a capital trial to admit evidence in any stage. It being a quarter to 6, Mr Dexter requested till the morning to prepare to put the case to the Jury in the close for the prisoner. He should not occupy exceeding two hours tomorrow.— The Chief Justice said that considering the mag- nitude of this case, the Court were in no way disposed to press it, and would postpone the close for the defence till to-morrow. Mr Dexter will commence his argument soon after the opening of the Court this morning. The Court adjourn- ed at 10 minutes of 6. Friday morning, Dec.2.5. Charles C. C. Mower, appeared and was sworn for the defence. I reside at Northampion ; am engaged in the stove trade. Formerly w;,s a saddler. First knew George T. Kinney in \H'2i, when he was one and twenty, in Windsor, Vt. He was foreman in the shop. Our connexion continued till U!2k as partners in trade at Walpole, N. H. We were together as partners about 18 months. He was in the habit of playing- cards, as most young men were at that time. I know this 36 habit continued till October tast, when I saw him in this city. l'h >re has been a change in his general habits, since he cam? to this city. He left ma in 1821. and went to sea; I next saw him in 18)6, in this city. Have seen him since his in image to Mr-. Kinuey an I heard him sp3dk of her in the Inkiest terms ; never otherwise.— His character formerly was cheerful ; when I saw him here he wa-> cli mge I, which I attributed to his embar- rassments He was different in many respects. When with m~ he seldom look ardent spirits, but when I saw him in this city he drank more. The effect upon him wis to make him gloomy. I saw him at the Tremont Theatre one evening; he went in affected with liqior, anil slept through the first act; soon after said he believ- ed he woull go away, and left me. Tliis was between the 5th and 10th of October 1839; I did not see hiin again. Cross Examined. When I saw him in 1839, he was much depressed. It wis a general time of em'».irrass- m-jiit in b isiness Do not know that he was more de- pressed lhan many persons in business were. In 1838 I was in the city four days; saw him one of thoM- d tvs; in 18J() snw him in January. April, and July; I was here on business; did not see hnn from 1838" till Oct. 1839; witness desires to correct the dates; tirstsaw him in Dec. 183(>, and then in 1838; I change ii from '38 to January and October 183'J; yes, sir; I am correct; in January, Vpril, JyIy and October of 1839, I saw him, and have not seen hiin since. Clues. How came vou a witness ? Ans. I was conversing with a gentleman in North- ampton, of my connexion with Mr Kinney, and he wrote to the counsel here. I did not desire film to, and did not slate it with the expectation of coming here.— He said my testimony would be important, but I told him my business did not require me to go there. The conversation was caused by what the gentleman who wrote the letter read in the Morning Post. When I saw him in this city, I saw him play cards for money, a small amount. I played, but did not stake any thing. I played for Kinney, and won about eight shillings for him. 1 believe. II s result was a gam. Cannot tell the name of the game I played. Never saw it before nor since. In Ciief. Mr Kinney had a peculiar determination to carry a point thai lie was bent upon. Generally quick ii% making up his mind; I saw Mr Kinney at Philadelphia, alter 1 saw him in 183(i; I think it must have been in 18 57. The testimony here closed on both sides, and Mr. Dexter began his argument at 11) minutes before 10, and closed at 25 minutes after 1, (three hours and a half)— The ability, clearness and convincing force of this ar- gument, as well as the beauty and impressiveness of many of its passages, were acknowledged by the intent and untiring attention of the crowd who listened to it. We shall g;ve it at full length, which will be the only ^elaborate report attempted. ARGUMENT OF FRANKLIN DEXTER FOR THE DEFENCE. Fkidav Morning. Dec. 25. [Mr. Dexter began his argument in the close of the defence, at 10 minutes to 10, and closed lb minutes after one.] Gentlemen oftlie Jury— 1 am now to speak to you the last words of the pri- soner at the bar, before you pass on her deliverance or death; and little as I may apprehend the result of your deliberation, it is impossible I should approach the task without %n-at emotion. It is not any diiriculty or doubt in the cause, but the mere possibility of a monstrous in- justice being done, which lies with an oppressive weight' upon me. Confident as I am of her innocence, I Cannot forget the accidents that attend all human deliberations, and I cannot divest myself of all apprciensio.i of the awful consequences of a mistake ofth.' .F.iry. But slight as are my fears an J little as she miy senm to have been oppresse I dannr ih.> tnal.yo i, %e i.le.n j;i, can know nothing of the terrible e;f>rt repiire I to wnU up her mind to this calm en.larance : yoj see her only as she appears here, surroua le I by all the circumstances ol'a pu.>lic trial; and bearing it with a dignity, pro- priety and perfect composure that o.ight to be an as- surance of her innocence. But you have not seen h.-r in her secret hours of an dety to be delivered not from the punishment ofthe law—'or that she cannot serious- ly fear; but from a dreadful weigh; of public suspicion and odium. But this is not all; no matter what her confidence may be in the result, thers are lonely hours that must terribly oppress her. She has looked through this trial and seen the prospect not only of deliverance from the law by your acquittal, but of a vindication in public opinion. But, gentlemen, she is human and a woman ; and there must have been moments ol'a dark- er hue, when the possibility of an adverse judgement has overshadowed her mind. That most horrible spec- tacle of the execution of a human being, must more than once, have flitted across her •icliing vision. In the silent darkness of her cell, she must, at tunes, have seen the most horrible phantom that can scare the sick mm on his pillow, and even in dreams indict upon us ihe last agony of the human heart. But these are visions of the imagination, When we look deliberately at the cause, it is impossible that she or I should fear tor the result. One remark, by way of caution, I will make. It is this—It is difficult for you to resist the power of a pre- conceived suspicion ; I do nol mean m your own, but in the whole public mind. The prisoner comes before you loaded with suspicion, and you seem to sit here lb try, not whether she is guilty, but whether she can clear herself of the cloud ol suspicion thrown upon her. You and every one, look at her, unconsciously, as a person who is to prove her innocence, and every fact thai doe3 not prove her innocence, seems, by preconceived sus- picion, to tend lo confirm her guilt. It is the constitution of the human mind thus lo be imperceptibly influenced, and when thus predisposed to receive impressions, trifles light as air, become confirmation strong. In fact, though not in law, the prisoner, by reason of these suspicions, is not on trial whether she be guilty, but is put lo the bar to prove her innocence. Resist these influences, I beseech you gentlemen.— Remember you are not to try the truth of public suspi- cion, but the truth of ihe fact as if she had never been charged before. Vou are to begin at the beginning, and try her, as if innocent and unsuspected : and if your judgments stop short of conviction of certain guilt, you are bound to acquit. Belbre you can touch the lite of the prisoner, you must have a firm, unwavering con- viction ihat here was a death by design, and that Ihe person who committed it is the prisoner and no other. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, and only of circumstantial evidence. Vou are therefore to be sat isfied that the prisoner did the act, only l>v being satis- fied that no other could have done it. Vou must also be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that it is impos- sible to explain the evidence without inferring her guilt —that the evidence not only shows her guilt bu i ex- cludes that of all others, The first enquiry is, did the man die of poison ? I think you will have little doubt of that, but still there is great defect in the. proof. I do not however, rely on that; there is strength enough behind it; but if there were not, there is such difficulty here, in the outset of the case, that you would pause long before you would say this proof satisfies vou ihat thedeath waseaused by poison. There should have been proof beyond all ques- tion, that the poisoo, said lo have been found in the IS stomach of the deceased, was there before he died. 'Ihe proceedings were liable to many errors The con- tents ol the Mi maili weie put into a bottle Drought there by a i aintir, who uses the \uy ;;me e'ii-g in his pro- lusion, that was detected in ihe examination. He says he washed it out, but how, if at oil, is not certain, and it is certain that neither Dr Stoier nor Dr Jackson, examined it. '1 he pi oof therefore, is not inefregable that the pois- ok was not in the bottle. Not long ago we heaid of a limes used for the very disease for which Backel- elder was confessedly treating Kinney, and when so used, is not unusually compounded with pepper. He told Harrington thai he used arsenic in his practice, which was a powerlul remedy, and perlecily sate in skilful hands. Mr. Pratt also tells you that he took Eachelder's bowel pill, and he describes the effects of it. Bach- elder prescribed two; witness took three and it almost destroyed him. 1 call 10 your mind the description whole family, in Fiance, j oisontc! by the liquid from a ! that witness gave of the effects ol these three pills— bottle that had been washed wiih shot,which, as is well j the symptoms were precisely those with which Kinney known, is made with the help of arsenic. This is not died, and tor him Bachelder had prescribed six of these all. Theie was an extreme carelessness in keeping the I pills ! tboltle. In the late celebrated case of poisoning in France, In what estimation did Bachelder hold human life ahe hollies and vessels were sealed with the utmost care, upon which he recklessly experimented. When Har- nnd in a judicial examination, cvii'eiue was required that; ringtou came home and asked him how his business mo poison could, by jossibiliiy, have been introduced ' prospered, he said he had killed one man, Kinney, to ce.to them wiih ihe contents ot the stomach of the de- aspd lh In the present case, the witnesses cannot state how u e bottle was stemed,or hew it was kept. The stu- Jent, MiTibbells. look it, at ihe house, tarried it to Dr 1 ackson's office, and lefl it there alone and unguarded or five hours, and then it was conveyed in ihe even- ing to Dr Gay's. Well, I may be asked how could arsenic have been introduced 'f That is not for me lo suggest. It may have been accident; that is improbable. It may have been designed ; that is horrible, atrocious, incredible! P.ut is it less monstrous than ihat this wife, without a conceivable motive, should have murdered her hus- band ? Even if you were to suppose that a secret en- emy of hers went to that office, while the boltle was exposed, and put arsenic into it to ruin ihe prisoner, it is not a greater crime,or less improbable, more less with- out motive, than that this wile should have murdered her husband ; a wife of whom he had said that he nev- er saw a scowl upon her face. Gentlemen, if the case were not so strong for die prisoner on other grounds, 1 should press this. There is a want of care in this mode of proof that should weigh much in lavor of human hie. Again, Dr. Siorer at first said that the man died of cholera. It is therefore within the bounds of probabil- ity ihat he actually did die of cholera, and that after deatn, arsenic was introduced into the contents ot the stomach. If you ask me it I beheve this, I tell you no, nor will you; hut it is possible, nay,not more improbable than this very crime without motive ; and theretore be- fore you condemn, you are bound to be satisfied ihat it could noi have happened. Another suggestion I am bound to make: the great liability in mistaking for some other article, a poison like arsenic, dealt out by Apothecaries' boys. If you ask me bow this mistake was made, I do not know, nor does it belong lo me lo answer. Again it is possible and not improbable, that Kinney came to his end by tlie mal-practice of the'witness who is called Doctor Bachelder. It is impossible to suppose ihat he did it designedly, and that impossibil- ity also lies at the bottom ot this case—for you cannot on ciri-umslance, convict of crime without motive.— But it is highly probable that Kinnev came lo his death by the mal-practice ol that man. Vou know that he had been sick ten days,ano had applied lo Bachelder foi advice, on Tuesday before his death. Vou know that he took Bachelder's secret medicines and grew worse. You al.«o know that he took the bowel pill. You do not know that he tookil till Saturday ; but if Dr. B. did stive it before he is not the man to admit il here. You know that he has used arsenic, henbane, hemlock, and other deadly diugs, as icmedies. Vou know ihat the pills he left for Kinney and which were found and examined at the house, were composed in part oi pepper, and Dr. Bigelow tills you that arsenic is a cumulative poi- tou, dial it is used in certain diseases, and some- whem he had given his bowel pill. True the witness says this was said in jest, but is to much like poisoning in jest. So conscious was he of something wrong in his prac- tice with Kinnev, that when Lane and Danfbrth called on him, he denied all but ihe syphilitic pill; yet you have it in evidence that he lold Harrington he gave his bowel pill. When he was sent for by Mrs Kinney, and was told thai his patient was worse, he immediately exam- ined the pills that were left. Whether he lound a mis- take he does not tell, but you see what his misgivings were. And what is the nature of this arsenic ? You will re- collect what I showed vou of it. A fatal dose migh be pufupon the point of a penknife. Two grains are said to be deadly. You saw three grains, and how small an ingredient lo put into a pill. And vet, take ihat little powder and "there is no medicine in the world can do you good"—your death is ceitain. 1 a-k you then, are vou satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Kinney did not die from arsenic conveyed in these drugi T Still, gentlemen, however great the weight of proba bility here, against that which attaches guill to the pris- oner, il is light compared to the piobabilily of suicide. The evidence of thai is so strong, ihat I am Iree to con- fess it entirely outweighs the evidence against Bachel- der; but were I called upon to decide between him and the wife, as the agent in this death, standing as ihe case now does, 1 should believe ihe probabilities that Bach- elder was that agent, sooner than I could believe it of a wife whose whole conduct towards thai husband proves if she were the murderer, and thus acted and dissem- bled, there is not, I do not hesitate to say, her parallel to be found in human history. You must not, however, lay aside the consideration that here is a mode by which ihe man mighi have died, without violation of the rules of probability, and con- sistently with the evidence in the case, and with the in- nocence of the prisoner. \\ e are not bound to show you how it was done, but the government must show ihat ii was done by the wile and not by another. We merely suggest; and one mode of the death is ihe mal- practice ot Bachelder, and the other suicide. The two modes of accident and suicide should be considered together, and both rejected, before her participation in Ihe death can be approached. Accident, though im- probable when compared with suicide, is probable when compared wiih murder. When you come to consider the evidence, if indeed you consider it, you wall weigh well all the circumstances, all the reasonable proba- bilities, connected with the death of Kinney and then say if you are satisfied of her guilt. And now gentlemen, in that view, I propose to go with vou over the evidence in this case, and lay before you the course of events as briefly as 1 can, and mere- iv lor the purpose, of inquiring inio the strength of the evidence ogainsi the prisoner, we will examine ihe two modes suggested as to the cause of the death, murder or suicide! The two run together in the evidence, but 46 whether murder or suicide—if he took the poison himself, oj if it was administered by his wile, it is clear that the poison was taken on S ilardty morning. There is evi- dence, I know, ot a certain character, as to poison hav- ing been administered in the night, in the sage tea ; but if any thing be clear it is that, if poison was taken night, and are satisfied that poison was also adminis- tered to him by another h in 1 th in his ow i, in the in irn- ing, you wo il I hive a rig'u to infer ih il she was tlio poisoner in the morning; but you mast lint k io.v sha was the poisoner of the n'-giit. fi lu did it, h; coil I have done it al his shop, on Saturday morning, bit at all, it must nave been on Saturday morning. It is j there can be no suggestion ol proof that the p,> si.iui^ clear that on that morning his symptoms and suiferings «f Saturday morning was by her, unless ihey sIma tu it were the same that marked the whole ease, and ihey j she did it after he came home that morning, or unless continued increasing from that time till he died.— (it is shown that the tea, taste I by G.*odwm, was drug- There is no proof of any characteristic change, lode-' ged with arsenic. Otherwise to account for the symp- sio-nate any other point of time than this. I here was loms of the morning, yon are driven to the conjecture, no time when he began to be sick in any other way; ' that he attempted his own life at the sh >p, in the innrii- he only grew worse in the same way. If he was | ing, and she in the night, at lioin.1. and that his death poisoned by the inal practice of Batchelder, from ' was the result of the joint design of which lUey were ignorance or rashness, he might have begun taking ' mutually unconscious. S ich an absurdity cannot he tne poison earlier than Saturday. Vou have heard entertained for a moment, an! yet wilhout proof thut from Dr. Bigelow ihat this is a cumulative poison, and ; the tea contained poison such an absurdity mnst he when taken in small quantities, dose after do»e, goes supposed to have happened, or she cannot be guilty, on increasing in effect, until the last particle is given, i The question then, is narrowed do.vn to this; was the system is overcharged, and life is destroyed. If he poisoned by the sage tea 1 Are you satisfied thai then Bachelder was administering arsenic to him in the ! the tea did contain arsenic, and that it was put into the form of that infernal pill, the cause of his death might , bowl by his wife with wilful intent lo take hie .' If not have begun to operate earlier than Saturday, but if it | satisfied of that, you must then be satisfied she poison- was administered by himself or his wife, it must have ! ed him in the morning, or ihe prosecution falls to the been on Saturday, and if for the purpose of murder or ( ground. suicide, it would in all probability, have been adininis-j If you fall back upon the poisoning at night, as the tered at one time, and in a single dose, suiliciont lo j only point the charge can rest on, you will require of the produce death. It is not suggested, and will not be government that this-fact of poisoning in the lea, must pretended, that the wife was ]eedin id win went to ths bure iu foi wa- t>r and did'nt notice it. Mrs Varney washed iut the crockery that night, she- hears all about it new, has heard it before,and yet says nothing and knows nothing of the sediment. 1 doubt if there was any sedim nt in that bowl; but suppose there was, what was it? Dr. Hile shows that you can't use Boston water boiled in a vessel frequently used for that pur- pose, with .ut a sediment. It is like white sand, rolling about, just as thi« is described by the witness. I ask you if human life is to be put in danger by such a slight circumstance? If MrsV irney saw it, she did not notice it at all,*nd if th*r.•: at all, it must have been a commin and orlinary occurrence. Bjt sugar was in the tea—Goodwiu says it was s weet, and if it were East Boston sugar, the evidence is it would deposit a limey substance; and when it is thus apparent it might have been the water, or might have beon the sugar, that produced the sediment, are you to suppose, without proof, that it was a deadly drug? Noth ing then remains of the bowl of tea but the sick- ness of Goodwin, and is that any thing but the mere nausea of a sick chamber? The whole ev- idence on this point is very insignificant, and except the sickness, proves as much against Goodwin as against the poisoner. Not that I make the slightest suggestion it could have been Goodwin, but being as strong against one as against the other, it has no s'.rength against either, because without previous suspicion or subsequent confirmation, it is nothing but an intrinsic improbability. They are in the cham- ber together, the bowl of tea is prepared by her, at Goodwin's recommendation. She has it alone and may put in arsenic; sets it down and Goodwin has it alone and he may drug it. He is a witness and she is the prisoner—he may tell his story and she cannot tell hers. Reverse the case, and is there a tact or motive in this cir- cumstance that touches her, which might not reachhimas well? Isthere a cenjectuial mo- tive, as to her? I could suggest a conjectural motive as to him. If you are to proceed upon facts and evidence alone, you might as well convict the witness as the prisoner. You have only to forget that she was the wife, the suppos- ed motive, though proved a tender and kind wife—you have only to lay this out of the case, and Goodwin stands on the same footing with her, in weighing this circumstance. Not that I say or would intimate Goodwin did it—it would be monstrous ; but why say she did it and Goodwin could not ? There are only two suggestions to weigh against her, one that she was the wife, and the other, that she is suspect- ed by public rumor. Leave these out, and I say you may as well convict the witness as the pris- oner. But this is a cirenmstanco, and may go with others to make up a conclusion, and if so, give it the weight it deserves. Suppose then, she had the design of poisoning, and had drugged that bowl, can you believe she would have brought 42 it into the sick room, too hot to be drank ? lay it on the bureau, lie down upon the bed, and leave that poisoned fowl in the power of the wit- ness, Mr Goodwin? Is that credible? You believe her, if you believe thatshe < to Charlestown and piss the night; she .-monp irative stranger. Mrs Kini.ey would not allow her to be absent; she desired her to come back and she came back. Now look at this. If she meant murder would she solicit witnesses ? Goodwin was also de- sired to come at noon, another witness. She sent for Harriet Hosford in the evening, she told the neighbors of her husband's sickness, and more than all, she told it to Dr Snow in the Btreet, and said if he did not get better she should send for him. Does all this look like guilt? An argument is to be urged against her, that no doctor was sent for till Saturday evening, when Bachelder came in. The suggestion on this point is, either that she would not have a physician at all, or that she waited for the ef- fect of the poison to work. But why she more than he ? Who prevented the call of the doctor if any body did so? She told Dr Snow she should send for him if her husband grew wor*e, and yet no doctor was sent for till Bachelder was called in, in the evening, and by Kinney's request. It was he then who sent for Bachelder and not she. It was Kinney who wouldn't have a Physician called in until evening, and then the very one he had consulted in secret the week before. The delay in sending for a phy- sician, attaches to the deceased and not to the prisoner. Now, if Kinney intended to destroy himself, he would want no physician ; ifshe had destroy- ed him she would want no physician, but then would she have told of the sickness to Dr Snow, and proclaimed it to the neighborhood? It was then his act and not hers in not send- ing for a physician ; he knew his disease was too deep for medicine. Goodwin was sent for at seven o'clock to go'or a doctor; he did not come till half past nine, and the prisoner went for Bachelder between eight and nine. Why then was Dr Bachelder sent for? It is evident that Mrs Kinney had suspicions as to Baehelder, for when he came she showed him into the room of her husband, and said, "there is the man you have given medicine to,and you know for what." 1 infer from this that her husband had just pre- viously confessed to her the odious disease for which he had applied to Bachelder, and there- fore she did not desire to be in the room, or Kinney himself might have preferred to see him alone. When she afterwards told Dr Storer of this visit, she asked what,the man would have been shut up in the room for, except for secret diseases, and she told him she thought there was something very mysterious in Bachelder's visit. She then either knew or suspected the nature of their interview. Had she stopped with the word mysterious, it might have been urged against her here that she wanted to hint the death upon Bachelder, to conceai her own crime ; but she added, "do they see their patients alone, except in secret dueases ?" This shows the importance of a single word in testifying to a conversation or the declara- tions of the accused. You all know how diffi- cult it is to remember a conversation, and when you examine this testimony,so much of which de- pends upon the supposed declarations or remarks of tie prisoner, be cautious in giving much weight to such testimony. Dr Bachelder denies that the door was locked, in his interview with the deceased. That is im- material The consultation between him and Kinney, whatever it was, wa.« secret, and all the circumstances tend to show that it was so by Kinney's desire, and that she knew it was in- tended 'o be secret. After the visit, she follows Dr Bachelder down stairs and inquiies if her husband will get well or not. When Dr. B. says he thinks he will, she observes, 'Dr 1 don't think he will get well.' Why not, asked tne Doctor? Because Mr Free- man (her former husband) died in the same way! She told th;s to Mrs Bingham and so she said to Miss Collins. She said he is going on just as Mr Freeman did; he tried to put on his boots lo go out, and fainted, and so did Mr Freeman. You know, gentlemen, that she had been charged before this, of having destroyed Free- man by poison. S.e told this to Miss Linnell, for says Miss Linnell when she had the con- versation at the shop with Mrs K. about the ru- mors, Mrs. Kinney said "they accused me of poisoning Mr Freeman to get Mr Kinney, and now they accuse me of poisoning him, who am I to get now." How would she dare do this if indeed she had poisoned Kinney? How would she dare pat the two deaths together, as if to invite suspicion! My former husband, said she, died just as Mr Kinney died. Would a guilty person thu3 sug- gest suspicion, before it was hinted from any other quarter? No gentlemen, nor do I believe she could have said and done so were she not as innocent of the death of Mr Freeman, as she is of the death ot Mr Kinney. Was it possible that any woman could have brought the two cases together ifshe were guilty? it would be a degree of audacity, utterly incredible; as if she had said, "my former husband, whom 1 am suspected of having poisoned, died just as this one died." No guilty woman would thus have suggested the poison of the second husband by referring to suspicions of the murder of the first. In the evening, when Goodwin came in to watch with the sick man, she was alone with her husband. Is there any thing in that? and yet Goodwin seems to attach some importance to it. A wife alone in the chamber with her sick husband! Such are the incidents that sus- picion has wrought into mystery in this case — Is it pretended she wanted opportunity to ad- minister the poison, and was alone in the cham- ber for that purpose! No, gentleman. But at the several interviews oh Saturday evening, when 44 alone with the husband, probably the conver- sation took place in relation to Bachelder, and also the exclamation of Kinney, which Mrs Kinney afterwards related to Miss Hosford, "My God, or O! God! have 1 killed myself, Hannah, pray lor me !" Now this may not have been said with reference to death by suicide, but by his bad courses. The expression was perfectly na'ural, if that conversation took place on Saturday evening, when, as we sup- pose, Kinney disclosed to her that he had taken advice of Baphelder, which induced her to go to him. But why not send for the family physician? Hen is another mystery put to you in the opening. What is the evidence ? On Saturday night, Goodwin went up into the sick chamber, when desired by Mrs K.—and was requested to go for a physician. Kinney himself suggested Dr Ware, Goodwin objected to the distance, and proposed Dr Lane who was nearer, and went for him, but he could not come; Goodwin then suggested Dr Storer, which was assented to by Kinney, and Goodwin went for him. This explains why Dr Snow was not sent for. In- stead of contrivance to procure a strange phy- sician, it turns out that the physician Goodwin suggested, and not the one Mrs Kinney appa- rently preferred, was sent for. Besides, Mrs Kinney had called upon Dr Snow but once, and there was no family physician. Dr. Storer came at twelve that night, and in Kinney's hearing she gave him a true i ela- tion of every thing that had occurred, Dr. Bachelder and all. She showed him the med- icine, and asked if that could have done the mischief. Dr. Storer thought that it was harm- less, he prescribes for the sick man, leaves the house, and she is left alone with Goodwin; and here comes the story of the sage tea which I have already gone over. Goodwin remained till five o'clock in the morning, and then left.— It is important to see who were there, and what trace there is of any attempt at concealment.— Upon Goodwin's going, Mr. Bingham was sent for and came in, and Mrs. Kinney then sent hire for Dr. Storer, who had before been called by Goodwin, with Kinney's consent. There is not a circumstance in this whole transaction, except not giving the injection that Dr. Sto- rer had ordered. Mrs Kinney said she could not gi.e i', and is there anything extraordinary that a woman, under such circumstances should find it difficult to do it. I need not say much about it. If they mean to urge it against her, as neglect, it contradicts all the r theory for they say she was most hypocritically atten- tive. Collins then says Mrs K. called up her little daughter to fee her father in-law before he d'es. Kinney tells her to be a good daugh- ter to her mothei, and from that time till ten o'clock in Sunday morning, nothing worthy of remark occurs till you come to the dying scene. I am not aware that in this detail I have omit- ted a single material circumstance. At ten o'clock, when the deceased was about dying, she sent for Mr. and Mrs. Henry Bachcl-. der, whom she had known as friend* in Lowell He came ; his wife could not, and he remained there till Kinney died. That dying scene you have heard defcribfrd by this intelligent and cor- rect witness. I will not go over it, bicaute I am aware that the simple manner in which he related it, must have made a deeper imprejeion on you, than can any repetition of mine. One thing only, I will, remind you of: Kinney, though conscious he wns dying, expresses no religious hopes. After Mrs. Kinney had whis- pered to him, he asked the witness to pray, and he tells you, that while this prayer was made, this weman, the wicked author of bis death, if you believe the charges against her, sat down t»y the side of her dying husband, arid with mur- der in her heart, leaned her head upon his shoulder and wept. When he sank away ex- hausted, and his eyes become fixed in vacancy, she watched his last breath, and as it left him, stooped down, kissed his lips and bade him fare- well forever. [The prisoner was obviously and deeply affected, here.] Now, Gentlemen, if that woman is a murderer she is a moral monster, such as the world never saw ! There is no sentence your verdict can impose, and no punishment the law can give, that is adequate to such a crime. No, gentle- man ; human nature could not compass it, and human intelligence cannot believe it. Here er.ds the scene. Next comes in the Physician, and wishes to examine the body. If this woman were conscious of guilt, can you imagine the terror with which she would hear a proposal that scientific men should dive into the dark recesses of her crime, which she knew must contain the certain evidences of that guilt ? In- stead ol this, how natural and proper her deport- ment. 'The Doctors say your husband died of cholera, and we wish to examine the body.' What is her reply ? She says, I have no objec- tion ; it is unpleasant, but I am aware it is proper. Now, one word of her's would have stopped it, and it was not for want of power to feign, that she did not stop it ; for if she be guilty, she is capable of feigning beyond all women on earth. There was no suspicion of her then, and had she said but a single word of denial, the grave would have closed over her victim, and the proof of her crime, forever. A single remark may be pressed here. After the examination, the asked the Doctor of what he died. He replied he could'nt tell. 'Yes, said she, George has been sick some time, but he died of some complaint you know aB little of as I do' Was this any thing more than a sort of soliloquy,a thinking aloud. The doctors don't know, nor do I knew ; was it disease, was it remorse, was it suicide. All this may have unconsciously passed through her mind. She wasscaTcely got through this trial when the doct is came back again. They tell her we art? not satisfied, we want to examine further. Surely then was the time for guilt to have prevented farther research into its crime, but not a word of objection is said—goandexarr tne again. Now, gentlemen, there is but one explana- tion ol thu—her innoceuce— unless her con* 45 t to be left to conjecture a reply to what 1 may guess will be the argument. 1 ought not to be, nor do 1 mean to be unjust to the Attorney General.— Doubtless'ie discharges the high duty of his of. fice as he understands it, but I have only to say that if it be one of the duties of that office, to withhold from the request of counsel the purport ofevidence where a prisoner's life is at stake, / thank God I am not obliged to hold it! [Here there was a very general burst of ap- plause from the crowd, which was promptly checked by the High Sheriff, and silenco re- stored.] Austin—Upon such an accusation I claim the right to be heard. I will state to the Court what the learned counsel very well knows. 1 did offer last night to give him in writing the whole of the argument I should make on that point, if he would tell me himself, or would state in Court, this morning, that he did not un- derstand the fair import and bearing of it, from the evidence itself. Dexter. I am glad the Attorney General has made the explanation. It enables me to an- swer him. I did go to him last evening, and told him that his course was improper. I more- over told him that one of the oldest counsellors at the bar had said to mj that his conduct was unprecedented. He then said he would give the information if / would ask it of the Court, but not if my colleague asked it. Gentlemen, I will not submit to any disparagement of my colleague in this cause, eminently able and honorable as his conduct of it has v.een. I will not consent to any thing that may imply a censure of my honorable colleague. I with not to draw any thing personal into this case, but I will not ask any thing of the Attorney General that he will not give to my col- league. Here let it rest. I shall endeavor to meet the line of argument he may take as 1 best can, but if any course of argument is taken in the close, which I do not anticipate, I shall stand up here and ask to answer it, and I know that after such a request and such a refusal, I shall be permitted to do so. [Mr Dexter then went into a condemnation of the supposed inference from the Thursday break- fast. This was that it would be urged the pris- oner had put arsenic into the breakfast of Thurs- day, to cause a general sickness and raise the impression, from symptoms similar to those with which Kinney died, that the cholera was in the family : or that it was accidental, from the poison used on Saturday night having remained in some of the vessels, and thus have become 47 accidentally mingled with tbe breakfast of Th r s morning. Either supposition he showed, could not hold; that there was not sufficient evidence that the sickness was not caused by the materials of that very extraordinary breakfast, and that there was no proof that arsenic was used at all, or if used, that the prisoner had any more to do with it, than the witnesses.] Then comes in the blue paper, marked 'poi- son' and that is to be connected with the apple sauce, which it i9 to be supposed, contained the poison. I have only to remark upon the ex- treme folly of leaving the apple-sauce in the sink and throwing the paper down beside it, marked poison;—together with another improb- ability, that Mrs Varney should pass by the sink and see no blue paper, when she went to gather waste paper, to kindle the fire—go behind the door, collect the papers, and return, and then when she went to kindle the fire, discover the paper. 1 am not bound to explain it, but I think it obvious that this blue paper was with the waste papers behind the door, and that Mrs Varney gathered it up among the rest of a handful, and dropped it in going to the fire. But how came that paper in the house ? The answer is simple. We all know it is common to keep poison in houses for killing bugs, and it may have been the label of a bottle. That is sufficient to explain it for all our purposes.— There was a startling thought crossed my mind Was the paper placed there to supply a link that might be wanting in the chain of evidence against the prisoner. That indeed, would be a horrible suspicion, but no more horrible than that a wife should murder a husband without motive. Dr. Hildreth while on the stand, re- lated that when they were hunting up the evi- dence, the Attorney General declined mo- ving in it unless it was more conclusive, and 1 was startled to hear him say that the Attorney General told him that if it could be proved that the prisoner bought poison, or that a paper marked poison could be found in the house, he would move ia the case, and at that time the witness had not heard of this blue paper.— Where did he get the suggestion ? I am con- fident not from the Attorney General. He has contradicted the witness on that point, though the witness still persisted in it, but I do not be- lieve that such a remark was made by the pros- ecuting officer. But mark, Gentlemen, the pa- per was found. I did not cross-examine that witness because I did not think that in the disposition he was in, that course could be of any benefit to the prisoner. We have now traced the prisoner down to her trial. If guilty, is it possible that she should not by something have implicated herself—and yet I cannot perceive that there is a word we Kiiffht wish had not been said. How did Mrs Kinney take these reports when she heard them ? This is the most dan- gerous part tf the testimony, and is to be received with extreme caution. On Sunday, Drs Storer and Jackson, for the first time told her of the poison in the deceased. Her answer was, 'Indeed ?' Dr Storer seems to distrust the answer ; but how much depends upon the tone. But if you suppose as I do, that this fact came in confirmation of her secret sus- picions of suicide, then'indeed,' was all she could say. Afterwards, on the same day, she sent for Dr Storer, and wanted to know how the poison came there. Dr Storer asked ' could he have done it ?' Then, were she guilty, was an opportunity for her to have thrown the blame on tne deceased, and screen herself from suspicion. Instead of this, and as if to cover up his memory from the stigma of self-murder, she said 'No, I don't think George could have done it!' Had she been guilty, she would not have lost this opportunity to throw it on him. But she did not tell this to Miss Collins, and she seems hurt that Mrs. Kinney did not make her a confidant. I am not surprised that she did not tell it to Collins. I should have been sur- prised if she had. I think, gentlemen, you must make some allowance for the phraseology of that young lady. Much is to be abstracted when she gives the conversation of others in her/own language. Without the slightest dis- position to misstate, there may be a strong pro- pensity to embellish. I can make but little of all this detail by tbe witness of conversations and exclamatiens. They might be something, they may be nothing, and they cannot weigh a feather here against the prisoner. Let me again cantion you not to receive this and other sug- gestions, such as the sending the little daught- er out ef town, and going herself, or the con- versations at Thetford—as it to confirm your suspicions; but look at her as an innocent per- son and then say if you see in all this, any marks of guilt. But if she did it, where is the motive ? From the days ot the Roman Orator until now, in all causes of guilt to be proved by circumstance, the question has been, as it is now, "for what pur- pose did she do this?" and if the answer be want- ing in evidence, no jury can supply it. A Jury should never convict on circumstantial evidence without motive. All the evidence shows there could have been no motive. He had great fail- ings, but she was eminently forgiving. I ask you then, why she has done this ? Is it credi- ble ? I cannot conjecture where the Govern- ment will pitch for a motive, and I have looked through all the case. She discovered that night, that he had a disgraceful disease ; one that in- volved infidelity to her, and from mere jealousy, revenge or fear of contagion, she determined at once to take his fife ! This must be the theory, but what is the evidence ? There is not a par- ticle to support such a conjecture. The symp- toms of this disease were of a secondary kind, showing it was of remote origin, and implying no infidelity to her. And if recent—it must have been known to her before. He stated to Bachelder that it had long troubled him. Besides, she discovered this fact on Saturday evening, and the man was poisoned Saturday morning, before she knew it! Where theri is the mothe, or the possibility of even the conjecture of a motive? 48 Remember, again, we are not to show how he died. But how did he die? II not destroyed by Bachelder, he died by his own hand. It will be said, he died in silence ; that he could not have done so, and kept his secret locked in his heart. But it was a secret crime. He was a man of resolution, quick, and determined. True, they say he expressed,in his extremity, anxiety for relief; yes, relief from pain ; but not a wish was expressed to live. He desired no medieal aid, till it was urged on him ; he said nothing of religious hopes or fears ; he died in sullen si- lence. All he said was,'whereshall 1 be buried; no matter where !' and that was all, except that he desired to be buried under arms ; a very un- usual request for a dying man. Was it that in the eclat of the funeral, might be concealed the secret cause of his death ? He was poor and proud, he was a gambler, intemperate, ruined, and he suffered keeuly from remorse. Gloomy thoughts gathered upon him. He was a changed man to his old companions; he had contempla- ted death by his own hand, and he told Tucker that he once attempted it by laudanum. Such was his temperament. The idea of sui- cide had long been familiar to him, misfortunes had been accumulating and pressing him down, and at last came one drop that made his cup run over. He found the effects of former vices re- turning upon him in a disgraceful disease. Then it was that he carried Snto effect the purpose that he had in his mind, when he told Tuck er not to be surprised, if he should hear at any time, that he laid violent hands on his own life. This is the evidence, gentlemen, and there j is more proof in the case of suicide than of mur- der. .There is motive enough for suicide, there i is none for murder. Gambling and drunken- ness have had their thousands of victims by ' self-murder, and many men have fled to death ' as a refuge from the shame and misery of that odious disease which was upon him. Sup- pose, gentlemen, it were proved to you that Mrs Kinney had said she was tired of him and resolved to take his lite, and had once attempted it and failed ? What would you say then ? And yet you have had that evidence of the suicide of the deceased. If she had said so, she could not have escaped your verdict. I have now said all 1 proposed and more in detail than I intended. I now leave her to you. In the great hand of God she stands, and through him she looks to you for deliverance. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE ATTOR- NEY GENERAL JAMES T. AUSTIN. Gentlemen of the Jury. When the Grand Jury determined to present this case as a proper subject of judicial investigation, it was obvious they were about to devolve a most arduous task upon the prosecuting officers which none, not in love with labor, could desire to perform. It was easy to see that the tide of public feeling, if its current had ever borne against the accused, would as rapidly roll back again when it was found that in the imprisonment previous to trial, and the physical suffering in the progress of it, the prisoner would endure more than enough for suspicion, and almost enough for guilt. To those of us, gentlemen, who have some experience in these proceedings, and who know the extrem* difficulty of arranging a case of cir- cumstantial evidence to the satisfaction of a jury, the increased and inherent perplexities of a capital cause and the accumulated and almost insuperable obstacles which the humanity of the one sex presents when one of the other sex is the partyr accused;—nothing could be less de- tirable than the necessity of conducting such a prosecution. But from the obligation thus placed upon us, there was no honorable way of escape. In the full knowledge of this obligation and with a deep sense of my responsibilty^ I have endeavored to place before you all the legal evi- dence, and no more than the legal evidence, that has come to my possession. I sh all endeavor to apply this evidence to the weighty charge that hangs over the prisoner at the bar, and to treat it in its connection with the evidence and argu- ments of the prisoner's counsel. The result of the investigation is with you. The Common- wealth cannot contend for victory, for there is no verdict carefully considered and honestly rendered by an intelligent jury, that canever be defeat. The interest of the whole public is concern- ed for each and every of its citizens—to punish the guilty not more than to protect the innocent. But it is in the very nature of trial that the suspected, whether guilty or not guilty, should be placed at the bar. It is for the vin- dication of the law and the justice of the coun- try, that this trial should be freely, fully, fear- lessly conducted—that it may never be said or imagined, that one person is acquitted by favor or feeling, and another convicted from indiffer- ence or passion—that it never may be said those impulses of the public mind which sometimes would arrest and arraign without proof, and again acquit against evidence and reason—pre- vail over the calm, deliberate, sober judgment of the community. Providence in its mysterious dispensations sometimes involves the innocent in suspicion of guilt; as it afflicts them with poverty, be- reavement, or disease; and allows the guilty to escape an accusation with all the pride of beau- ty and the blessings of existence. This vicis- situde is not to be complained of, for it is the de- cree of Heaven. But it would be an insuffera- ble addition to the seeming evil if all human means were not enforced to place the one and the other in that position, where, according to our notions of justice, both ought to stand. The Counsel tor the Prisoner have presented you one side of the case. It is my duty to offer you the other ; and yours the important and re- sponsible privilege to determine what decision ought to be pronounced. Of that deoision what- ever it may be, no one can have a right to com- plain, and least of all will the officers of the Government desire to complain. The counsel for the prisoner have given you their opinion, as to her guilt or her innocence. 49 The counsel of the Government will do no such thing. They will only present to you this case so us to enable you best to judfl*e of both sides of it and having done this in the discharge of my official duty, I shall have nothing to regret or complain of, whatever may be your determina- tion. It has been opened to you as a case ot both positive and circumstantial evidence It is de- nied for the defence, that there is any positive evidence in the case ; but to my view, it is Doth positive and circumstantial. The humanity of the law requires that no party shall be put on trial for murder until the death is proved ; and we oftvr positive evidence of the death of Geerge T. Kinney. 1 had also supposed that nothing more positive or direct in proof, could be given than the evi- dence that the deceased died by poison. The scientific physicians who examined the whole case, tell you that in their opinion he died of arsenic. But more than this is required, and the evidence goes farther. The drug shall be found in the body of the dead man, to bring the charge of poisoning ;and, if found,the inference is then clear that poison has been taken, and has produced tbe death. There are, also, symptoms ot the disea«e befoi e death, which the prosecution must show, and these pillars of positive testimony bear up the arch that sustains the circum»tsntial evidence, and the direct inference upon which the Govern- ment rely in this cause. 1 need not detain you a moment, to shew that all the evidence proves that the symptoms were those of poison by arsenic; and the opinion ol the medical men is, that though the symptoms are common to cholera and poison, this was a case of death by poison, and not by cholera.— I know the medical evidence has been attacked, but the witnesses who sustain it have armor of proof to defend themselves, that requires no uid of mine. You will not doubt, gentlemen, Ihat the contents of the stomach were honestly dealt by, because there was no possible motive to tamper with them. 1 then lay this down as the corner stone ol the prosecution, that the deceased came to his death by the poison of arsenic, and if the inge- nuity of the coun-el for the defence could at- tack this stone wall, and with so much plausibil ' ity, you will judge what is the efficacy ofhts at tacuson the other main positions of the case. If you doubt this fact there is an end of tne prosecution. If you believe it, we then come to another position. It is indispensable to show not only that the act was done, but that the pris- oner wilfully did it, and if this is not shown, there is also an end of the case. But if the Government are to prove that in no other possible way this death could have hap- pened, then the case miglu have ended where it began, and all inquiry or trial in any cases de- pending on circumstantial evidence, become utterly useless. No man would stand here and say th.tt by no possibility it was suicide. No one could say, that by possibility the deceased might not have that morning, taken a glass of 7 soda, and arsenic been in it. If, in short, yon are tube limited to a question of possibility, the prisoner must he acquitted; and that is not all; no other man or woman should ever be put to that Bar for the charge ot murder by poison ; vou may strike that crime from the Statute Book. The prisoners you arraign for such a charge, may sit through the trial with the calm ness of a mirble image, without stirring a pulse or shaking a fibre of their frame, for when the mockeiyof a tnal is begun the certainty of ac- quital has arrived. I hold for the protection of all our fellow cit- izens, that this doctrine of possibility i- to be scouted fro n the case. 1 do not say that y u are to convict on mere probability; the proof you are to require must carry with it con- viction beyond a reasonable doubt. But I do not propose to say a word upon the law of the case, it would come with little weight from me if contradicted by the court, and 1 have no intention to advance any doctrine of evidence that they might not approve. I putthe case to you, on the evidence,as men of common sense and not of extraordinary learn- ing, for in the trial by jury, it is to men of good sense, drawn from the whole community, that all matters of tact in controversy, must be sub- mitted If 1 rightly understand the argument, of the opening Counsel for the prisoner, he gave you various modes and hypotheses by winch the death might have been caused, you were not required \o believe all or any ot them, and yet if either of them was possible, then the Govern- ment's hypothesis of murder,is to he taken as not true. Then take all these hypotheses and that of the Government with them, and if you believe none ofthem,ofcourse there is nothing tobeieve, and there is an end of the case. But examine all successively, and when yor can find one you can rest upon, that is to be taken, whatever may be the consequence; but if none can be relied on, then the prisoner is entitled to her discharge. We start with the fact that the dec< ased ded ol arsenic, and it is equally clearly proved, fhat not less than ten grains were found in the stom- ach. True, the test applied by Dr Gay did not produce this quantity, but if all the contents of the stomach had been analysed, as was that por- tion in which the poison was detected, a like product from the whole, would have amounted to at leas' ten grains. But this is not all. The deceased was subjected to severe vomiting and purging, after the arsenic was taken into the stomach, and n uch of the poison must have been carried off by that process, and you know it was the remaining quantity that actually killed him, by absorption into tbe system. If then, ten grains wer»» iound, after this es- cape an I absorption, how much was adminis tered to him, by himself or by some one else ? At lea«t ten times that amount. I put it then, nnt'only that he died by arsenic, but that, by calculation from the ten grain.* foun- in him, be must have received at lea-t one hun- dred grains into the stomach Sit down then if you please to give the case any consideration ft in the Jury room, and first ask what was the j real quantity the deceased took and held in his svstem. I estimate it at one hundred giains. One hundred and twenty grains is three cents' worth, or a quarter of an ounce. Settle it as you shall judge ; come to the mimimum ; take into the account the spasmodic appearances af- ter death, making him, by a convulsive force, almost live when he was dead ; and when you have fixed upon the quantity, let it be settled as a data, and then proceed to the next, and ask if that poison was administered by the man they have stigmatized as a quack, from the want of a medbal degree, because their witness, Dr Bigelow, could swear he had a degree from Cambridge College, and Bachelder was not al- lowed to show his without the record. Chief Justice. I do not so understand it. No such ruling has been made. Parker. The Medical Society is an incorpo- rated body, and it was given in evidence by several of the physicians who have testified that they were members. Chief Justice. No objection was taken. Austin. I do not put it as a different rule ap- plied by the Court. We did not object, they did ; but we could not get his diploma, which they required on their part, though it was not required of them. I do not stand here, gentlemen to defend ir- regular practice in or out of Court, but if the witness Bachelder, is to be tried on any such charge, it is nst here. I confess, that if I re- quired a physician for my family or myself, I should greatly prefer Dr Bigelow to Dr Bach- elder, but that is a different question from the one before you. The question is, did Bachel- der poison the deceased ? He ie a witness, and he states to you certain positive facts. Is he to be believed or not ? It is a question of veracity, not of medical degrees. It is not the practice of the Government to assume perjury in a wit- ness, we leave that to honorable gentlemen of counsel for the defence We do give eredit to human testimony, when uniuipeached and un- contradicted, and this is the instrument the Government has placed in our hands, for the purpose of managing its causes Bachelder testifies that on Monday Mr Kin- ney consulted him for a certain disease, and that he gave him a cathartic and a box < f blue pills, and nothing else, and never saw him again, until after the time the counsel fixes, (and I agree with him) when the poison was taken by the dying man. The arsenic then was either in the blue pills or the cathartic, if Bachelder gave it, This was on Monday, and the deceased was not under the influence of poison till the following Saturday morning. Now when did il develop* itsfll? He had one hundred grains in his sto- mach,and the symptoms did notshow themselvt s till Saturday. If he had taken poison trom Bachelder on Monday, it must have developed itself sooner It is said to be cumulative, but no man can take with safety, more than the sev- enth part of a grain in a daj, and in seven days be could have got but one grain in these pills, and how long would it take to get into the sys- tem ? It is a cumulative remedy, »nd, says Dr. Bigelow, we begin, when using it as *nch, wiih the sixteenth part of a giain. I beg ycu to look at it mathematically, as well bs mlnn- ally, and see if the poison the deceased took, could have been contained in the medicine given by Bachelder. This is the clear conclusion against that hypothesis if you believe the testi- mony ol Dr Bachelder. But they bring Dr. Harrington, par nobile frairvm, to conlront him. They are now rivals and each has set tip a hot shop of health, on bis own account. But Dr Harrington says that the very pills Bachel- der prescribed, were the syphilitic pills he shew to Mr Lane,and that there was no arsenic in them, and that Bachelder told him he never used arse- nic in syphilitic pills. By all the proof in the case, therefore, whatever' Bachelder may have done in other cases, he stands free in this case, from the imputation ef having administered ar- senic in the pills or the cathartic, from design or malpractice. After this, but, as we all agree, after the de- ceased was poisoned, Mrs Kinney came lor Bachelder, on Saturday evening, and he then gave his bowel pill, or as he more learnedly calls it, his mucilage pill, which he tells you contain- ed no arsenic, but mercury and slippery elm.— But this was not the poison the sick man had taken, for the fatal done was given on the morn- ing of that day, except what was in the sage tea; and is it probable that Bachelder when sent for, would prescribe laudanum, when, if this theory be true, he knew he had already administered arsenic? Would he have done this, unless he had the vision of the gallows before him, and wanted to walk up to it? * Dr. Storer, when he learned an irregular prac- titioner had been to the patient, inquired for Ihe medicine and examined it. Dr. Bigelow also examined it, but they found no arsenic. Dr. B thought it an imitation of Dover's powders, which never contains arsenic. The counsel asked Dr Bigelow, the curious question if arsenic might not have been in that powder. So if you see a tumbler of water poured from this pitcher, you might be asked if arsenic might net be in the pitcher, and you must answer an Dr Bigelow did, that i> possibly might be ; and here I say, what I have said all along, ihat ifwhatmt^At be, i« to be considered evidence, then it is worse than useless tor you and the learned Judges to sit here totry this cause, or any cause at all, But another byptthesisfor llie defence i»more likely to find favor, which is thai not,intending; to give poison, as a remedy. Dr. Bachelder mis- took, and gave it for something else ; snd they tell you, that when B.ichelder came there and was told that the patient was worse, he exam- ined the pills,and from (histhey infer that he might have made a mistake, but when he i'id examine the pills, he said all was right; so that he did just ax any one ol the medical faculty would have done, from the President to the scribe, by recommending a sedative in the form of laudanum. Now were it possible to put Dr. Bachelder in the bar, and cl.arge him with the death of this man, 1 am sure you would not leave u your seats, before you would say, there is not a shtdiwof evidence 10 implicate him in this homicide. Ttiere is a vastly more important question, gentlemen, for you to connder, and that is, that if this arsenic, in the supposed mil-practice of B ichelder, does not exi«t, there is a small line betweenwhe prisoner and the death of the de- ceased; but it is necessary to get rid of that before we come to the defendant. The greit obstacle raised to the conviction is, that Mr. Kinney poisoned himself; and here let me ask you to observe how ready they are to accuse all whomthe law does not accuse. To them all are guilty except those whom the Grand Jury indict, and failing in the attack upon the irregular practitioner, they put the dead man at the bar, when the grave has closed his lips, and there is no one to speak in his de- fence, and this they call the humanity that shames the Counsel for the prosecution. But how is the alleged suicide shown ? There is no positive proof; np one saw him do the deed, or heard him avow it; and the accusation is at- tempted to be sustained, by the feeble evidence called circumstantial, which is strong and irre- sistible when u ed on the side of the defence, but which, when applied to the prisoner, is like gossamer blown away by the breath of the conn- eel. Against the dead man who has no eoun sel.it is to be strong as cable ; against the pris- oner, defended by all the eloquence of her coun- sel, it is a whisp of straw; 1 am willing to mee it. You are called upon to infer that the deceased poisoned himself, 1st because of his habits—2d, because ruined in property—3d, because gloomy in his disposition, and 4th because he boasted, or bragged or threatened he would take his own life. The counsel for the defence tell you, that in circumstantial evidence, the facts are to be proved, and the inference must be a fair, logical deduction from them. I shall not dispute the position. Whence do they derive, or how estab- lish the facts? The secret thoughts and private acts of the deceased, his days of labor and his nights of ease, the difficulties, despondings and the failings of a whole life ; and all that may be treasured in the memory of a wife, are disclosed to the counsel and laid open here; but taking all, 1 ask you is there any ground to believe, that if like some Eastern nations who hold a jury on the dead, Ibis man were charged with suicide, it would be possible to find a verdict of guilty against his memory ? To call him a gambler, is speaking of htm in hard terms. He occasionally played at games for small sums, but the use of cards and games, at a convivial party, however it might be dis- approved by the learned clergymen who sat on your right, Mr. Foreman, this morning, is ex- tremely different from that habit which gnaws like a moral cancer on the desperate man, and makes him raise his arm againsthis life ; and the disposition that would magnify amusements like these, into the vice of gambling, belongs to the future Attorney General of the Common- wealth, and not the present. Tbe accusation \» harsh, and cruel and unjust, come whence it may, or strike whom it will. fMr. Austin examined the evidence as to the gambling, all of which he said came from Rem* ick. Lane, Tucker, Moore, Johonnet.] » The most important witness is Tucner. You would have supposed from his answers to the question how be came to be a witness, that he came here because he could not help it. How does it turn out ? He had written a letter to Mr. Riley, offering himself as- a witness, and was then promised his expenses for coming here. This is equivocation with a circumstance, and wiih this we begin our acquaintance with Mr. Edward L. Tucker. [After some further comments upon this wit- ness, and a review of the evidence as to the frequency and amount of the alleged gaming, which it was insisted were slight materials to prove a settled habit, the Attorney General ar- rived at the conclusion that if these are enough to lead man to commit suicide, we need not wonder at the numerous suicides we hear of, over the country.] The question is, was it a cause of embarrass- ment in his affairs, did he leave a single gaming debt behind him ? He told Leach expressly that his affat Boston sugjr, which he treated as highly fanciful, and a mere inference from an inference; an improbability founded on an improbability.] The effect of the tea upon Goodwin was the same as if ar-ienic had been in it, and its effeet upon the dying man was tbe same as would have followed a repetition of the dose of arsenic H ; drank it and threw it up, drank and threw it up again, and these are the operations of 'ar- senic, applied in a second dose. Mr Goodwin could not have easily been disordered in the stom- ach from the atmosphere ol the chamber, being a painte.' by profession, and accu-tomed to delete- rious smells, and fie was not likely to be broken down in a single night's watching. The slight .quantity he t >ok of the solution, would excite and irritate the stomach as his was, without pro- ducing further ebVets. This forms the direct evidence in the case. But it is urged, that if the party charged, had caused the death, she would have resisted the <>ost mortem examination. Why should she, or v hat should she know of the pero-ptible effects 1 arsenic after death. Until the recent experi- ment in the case of Mis. Norton, the popular notion was that arsenic died with the dead, and left no trace that could be found, and why then should she object to an examination, when such objection itself, might invite suspicion ? A con- trivance was necessary to represent the cause of the death to be cholera, or some other disease, and the examination might confirm the Doctors in that impression. Another proceeding must strike you as strongly indicative of contrivance. Here wa-i a husband suddenly taken away, and the first mode of ex- hibiting her grief for the dead was her visit* to his grave, twice repeated in two days. Tnis was either tru • love, or the picture of true love strongly painted. If it were true afL-ction, God forbid we should fix it on her as crime; but if it were the affectation of affection, it was only art carried beyond the art it was designed to con- ceal. Then comes the extraordinary application to Dr Storer for the certificate that he died of chol- era. Dr S orer swears that he had this inter- view with Mrs Kinney on Tuesday, but neither can he escape the severe remarks of the counsel. They, as do all who know him, admit his correctness, intelligence and high character, but, nevertheless suppose he is mistaken in the day. You have his eat1' against the argument of ihe counsel. If it was on the day testified, what but consciousness of guilt, could have feared suspicion before suspicion had been hint- ed to the prisoner The counsel wish to make you understand that she had been pointed at [out] at the funeral, as the murderer of her for- mer husband, and therefore wanted the certifi- cate. The supposition is ingenious, but not correct. No such allusion was made at the funer- al, nor is it in evidence that she had heard any thins of the poisoning then. Chief Justice. You know Dr Storer says that he had not spoken to her of it, but Dr Hildreth had heard of it on Sunday and Monday, and on Sunday it led to the second examination. Austin. The application for ihe certificate implies some cause lor apprehension, and how can the transition be made to the death of her former husband, when not a word bad been said about him. Then follows this transaction on the next Sun- day when she is first informed that poison was found in the deceased, anil her simple answer to this awful disclosure, is "indeed!" ltissaid much depends on the tone in which it was ut- tered. Try it through the gamut, and see if there is a tone for it that is not at discord with innocence. Why gentlemen, to have thus re- ceived the first intelligence that her husband had died by violence, she must, if innocent, been wound up to a stoicism unsurpassed in an- cient schools. Miss Collins passes by, and says "you have had an early visit." "Yes," was the reply, but not a wor of the terrible discov- ery just disclosed to her, and which she kept locked in her bosom, as if she were marble. And the counsel asks,'who is Miss Collins'' That he can answer as well as I. You,gentlemen, have seen these several young ladies, who with so much modest dignity, propriety and discre- tion, have passed through the extremely trying lest of a public examination in a crowded Court; and when the learned gentleman asks, 'who is M»ss Collins ?' I can only answer that she, like 5*1 the rest, is a splendid example of the results of education iu our public schools. I have suggesti d to ycu, that, in the whole of Ibis transact!) n, the pi isoner if guilty, proceed- ed step by step by stratagem and contrivance. If so, ihe proceedings al the breakfast of Thurs- day morning, are a part of it, and as such they are submitted to your consideiation. 1 approach this topic with reluctance. The cksing counsel has seen fit to make it the occa- sion or the cause of imputations, as gratuitous as they are uncourteous and un rue. Dexter. Do you mean to state that the faets are untrue ? Austin. I mean to say the imputations are totally untrue, and I must beg your attention, gentlemen of the jmy, while I explain. In the progress of this trial, each of the witnesses for the government were examined, cross examined, and their answers taken down The time of in troducingthe witneess was the time for the othei side to have objected to any portion of the testimony, and require that the government should state the object and relevancy ; and when all was in, and this of Thursday morn- ing with the rest, it was not and is not now believed by me that (he gentlemen were or could be ignorant of the legitimate inference to be drawn from it. But if they had asked me pri- vately, as a gentlemen at the bar, they should have had my notes as freely as they have bad every document and paper in this case. But instead of that, the junior counsel (Mr Curtis), rises, and, with great formality, demands ot the court to pass an order upon me, to show why I had offered evidence which the court had per n.itted to go to the jury ! It was rmhgtbe pardon abl- in a young man, but he should have known better. The Court leplied, as I was well aware they would, that this was not the time or place, for such a requisition ; and upon this the junior counsel indulged in a strain of remark that might require teply, hut that I have no disposi- tion to occupy your time or that of the Court, in answering holiday speeches. It is perhaps, well enough in a maiden speech, and 1 ought not to be surprized that the gentleman, feeling somewhat of the importance of a militia officer with a new uniform on for a holiday muster, should attempt to use the sword by his side, in an attack upon the Government Officer. I have never refused it to the senior Counsel. He applied to me, not for himself, but with re- ference to his colleague. What then; was I to have submitted to the rebuke of this young man, by conceding it to bim ' No ; and I told the se- nior Connsel, ihat if he would make the state- ment to the Court or would say to me, that he did not understand the usp I intended to make, of it, he should have it; and I wrote it out for that purpose in the midst of the trial. He has not said, and never will say, that he did not un- derstand the legitimate inteiencesfiom that evi- dence. He new says he would not ask it for himself because 1 had denied it f> his colleague, and by that he admits that he had all he wanted, and only wauted it to cover his colleague. And yet he has told you that I have kept back an argument to spring it upon the prisoner ! I confess 1 am restrained by the respect I feel for the Court, and for the solemnity ol the occasion, from retaliating upon him, as such discourteous, ungenerous and unjust conduct deserves. It is Christmas day, and rarely are our Courts open on this day ; but 1 well remembei, thirty- four years ago, when they were open on this an- niversary for the investigation of a homicide committed at the hour of noon, upon the public exchange. It was a time of high excite- ment, of emotion, of feeling, of party. I remember ihe conduct of ihe defence on that occasion, by one of the most gifted and elnqnent counsellorsever known at this Bar; and I reu em- ber the eivility, the considerat on ?nd kindness with which he treated my predecessor. All the sensibilities I then may have had in iplation to Ihat trial, were long stnre buried in the grave, and lon'y regret that the learned counsel, who appears in this defence to-day, while he has somewhat of the ambition and much of the tal- ent, has not inherited the courtesv of his father. [Mr. Austin alluded to the trial of Selfridge for the murder of Charles Austin, a cousin ot the Attorney General. Selfridge was defended by Samuel Dexter, father of Mr. Franklin Dex • ter. There was some applause which was checked.] *I will now, said Mr. Austin, read to you the paper I had prepared to give the Counsel, had he desired it for himnelf. He then rend the proper mferences he proposed to draw from the facts at the breakfast, as follows :— "That there was poison—arsenic in the house. That Mrs. Kinney had possession of it. That she used it. That the probable object of using it was to produce the idea that the cholera prevailed in the family, and thus, by a general indisposition of its members, counteivail the be lief that Mr. Kinney died by poison. That if the jury believe the prisoner possess- ed arsenic on Thursday, and does not show whence or when she obtained it, they are war- ranted in the conclusion that it was in her pos- session on Saturday previous." Il is too late for me now to illustrate all the positions on which we rely in this cause, but the first suggestion in the preliminaiy inquiry was, if the prisoner poisemed the deceased, where did ebe get the poison. Dr. Hildreth is entirely mistaken when he says I told him it was impor- tant to find a papei in the house containing, or that had contained poison. It was found before I saw him. though not known to either. The paper is here, and you have the evidence. It is a strange eoincidepce. The deceased died of poison, and while no traces of it is found in his private drawers, there is found a paper marked poison, dropped down at the spot whence was ta- ken an article of food that poisoned the family. Was it n< t a most remarkable ciicumstance that the sickness of all the family, tbe finding of the paper, and the wish of the prisoner to ob- 66 tain a certificate of cholera, should all turn up at once in the same house. If, indeed, the pris- oner be the victim of circumstance in all this, it would almost seem she was the victim of a high- er power, and that the finger of heaven points you to do your duty, be as serious as it may ! These are the circumstances in the case, and whether they are to be like chaff and of no ef- fect, or like the arsenic fatal to human life, you are to judge. If we were permitted to consult only our feelings for the prisoner, I doubt not you would open the bar, relieve her from arrest, and say God speed to her, in her future journey of life. If gui ty, she carries a wound within, no sympathy of earth can heal; but if innocent, Go I forbid that a hair ot her head should be touched : all our feeling will be desire to relieve her from the imprisonment, the suflfer- intr, the anguish, she has endured, by this ac- cusation and trial. Justice may authorize you to say so, by your verdict. 1 trust it may; but however you may feel for her, Justice ha3 not an eye for one being alone. It looks to the whole community, and however painful it may be to apply its sanctions to an individual, and she a helpless woman, the single infliction is more than relieved, when- ever it is demanded by the shield it throws over the unprotected citizens of the Commonwealth. CHVRGE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. After consulting the Jury, whether they pre- ferred proceeding in the case, this evening, and understanding it to be the wish of the Jury to do so, the Chief Justice commenced his charge, by remarking upon the importance and interest of this trial. Gentlemen of the Jury:—It is almost impossi- ble to exaggerate the importance to the defend- ant, to the community at large of th.s prosecu- tion, and the weight of responsibility which it casts upon all those who are concerned in the conduct of tbe triai. On the one hand we are called upon to vindicate the law, for the protec- tion of hu nin life, in the domestic sanctuary, where man has garnered up his dearest hopes, where he has a rigrit to expect the highest se- curity from fidelity and affection, and Ihat too against a secret and most atrocious crime from which neither manhood, nor vigilance can guard him. On the other hand we see before us, a female in ihe maturity of life, apparently talented, ed- ucated, and well connected, a widow and moth- er, relations commanding the deepest sympa- thy, charged with the darkest crime perhaps, which a woman and a wife can commit. If guilty, none of these recommendations should shield her from that punishment, which a crime so destructive to every community demands.__ But should a woman so situated, be convicted while under a filse accusation, of so deep and atrocious a crime, it woi.U not only be an irre- parable, and most deplorable act of injustice and wrong to her, but would bring discredit upon the law and upon the administration of ctiminal justice, which would destroy public confidence, and be productive of disastrous consequences to the community. Whatever tends to weaken the confidence of society in the power of the law to discover the guilty and protect the inno- cent from false accusations, tends in an equal degree to injure the efficacy ot the law as a se- curity for social rights. Considerations of this kind, arising spontane- ously in the minds of every one charged by the law with an active participation in the conduct of such atrial, necessarily lead to that feeling of deep responsibility which is thrown upon every membei of the Court and Jury ; an earnest wish and nincere desire to discover the truth, and to avoid error, mistake and false judgment, on the one hand or on the other. But from this respon- sibility there is no escape. When such an ac- cusation is made, it may be true, or it may not, and trial mmX be had. No other means can be used than are offered to human judgment, im- perfect as it; j, I y the aid of the best wisdom which can bfe had, and under the guidance of those rules of law and evidence, which long ex- perience has shown to afford the best means of discovering truth in a course of judicial pro- ceeding The conclusion to be drawn from these considerations is not that the jury are to be deterred from acting, but that they will bring to the inquiry the best powers ot their minds iu weighing the evidence, and applying the law with intelligence and impartiality. But gen- tlemen, we have not only need of all the vigilance, intelligence, and impartiality, which the mind of man can exert, but of that wis dom which cometh from above. Let us then humbly and fervently implore the divine bles- sing on this day's duties, asking of the Author of all light, wisdom, and good, to enlighten our minds, to purify our hearts, and enable us t > dis- cover and to follow the path of truth. The charge against the prisoner is that of murder; the murder of her husband. The gen- eral definition of murder, is the killing of any person under the protection of the law, with malice aforethought, either express or im- plied. Formerly, by thecommon law, the mur- der of a husband by a wife, was considered and called petit-treason. It was regarded as some- thing more aggravated than common murder, inasmuch as it was in some measure a violation of that obligation of duty, some what in the "a. ture ofallegiance from a subject to a sovereien, which the wife owed the husband. It was also subject to what was regarded as a seveie pun- ishment, that of execution by burning. But this distinction is now done away, and the mur- der of a husband is put upon the same footing by the law, as the murder of any other person. The mode by which death may be caused, may be infinitely various ; and in point of law the mode is immaterial, whether by wounds, by suffocation, starvation,exposure to ferocious an- imals, by poison, or indeed, any possible way in which, by human means, life may be overcome. In many cases, when it is clear that one per- son has directly or indirectly caused the death 87 of another, the first great question, perhaps the only question is, whether it was by malice.— But when the accusation is of murder by poison, the question of malice can hardly arise, because the very case supposes design, preparation and purpose whieh amount to the sure indications of express malice. The deliberation and con- trivance, neccessary to accomplish the purpose, prove the existence of malice propense. It is therefore unnecessary to point out the distinc- tions between expressed and implied malice, and homicide without malice, which are often amongst the most difficult inquiries, which can be presented to the minds of a Jury. In order to establish the charge of murder by poison, it must appear that the accused with an intent to destroy the life of the deceased, or do him great bodily harm, wilfully prepared the poison, with an intent that the deceased or some other person should take it—and that either by her own hand or by some unintelligent, igno- rant or unconscious agent, it was delivered to him to such intent; that the deceased took it, and that such poison in fact caused the death. And these are the facts, which must be proved to the jury, in order to warrant a verdict of guilty in the present indictment against the pris- oner. The main point is, that she wilfully pre- pared the poison, with an intent to destroy the life ot her husband, and Ihat through her means pursuant to that intent it was administered to him and did cause his death. It is immaterial by what means it reached the deceased; it is in such case the guilty contriver and not the un- conscious agent, who is the sole author of the crime. An interesting case, illustrative of this point, is stated in some of the old books. A man having for some cause malice against his wife, with an intent to destroy her life, charged an apple with poison, and watched a favorable op- portunity to present it to his wife in a manner aparcntly kind and affectionate. She, in the spirit of maternal kindness, gave it to a child to eat, whom the father dearly loved. Although he witnessed the act,he was afraid to interfere lest be should expose himself: the child ate the apple and died. In contemplation of law, the child was maliciously destroyed by poison, and this was murder; but it is manifest that it was the guilty father, and not the unconscious and agonized mother, who was the sole author of the atrocious crime. If the facts thus stated, as constituting the le- gal description and definition of the offence, are all clearly and satisfactorily proved, either by positive or circumstantial evidence, it is not ne- cessary to prove a motive to the crime. It is impossible so foul an act can be lawful, and therefore the inducement, the motive, whatever it may be, must be unlawful ; and such unjusti- fiable act upon an unlawful motive, is the es- sence of the crime. jn another view ir.deed, and in this very case, as may appear afterwards, the question of mo- tive or no motive, may become very material. When the evidence is wholly or mainly circum- stantial, the absence of any motive is a very strong circumstance against the conclusive character of a train ot other circumstances, hav- ing a general tendency to establish the accusa- tion. This is founded upon the obvious consid- eration from conviction and experience, that no man will commit a heinous crime, thereby vio- lating his own strong natural sense of justice and the clear dictates of conscience, and expose himself to the severe punishments of the law, without a motive, and even without a strong and urgent motive. Such considerations would be greatly strengthened by proof, if it exist, that so far as the motives, dispositions and feelings of the accused are disclosed, either by conduct or language, they would lead to an entirely op- posite course of condact. So oil the contrary, in a case of circumstan- tial evidence^ where (here is evidence tending to establish guilt, the force of such evidence will be much heightened by proof that the ac- cused had, by language or conduct, manifested a hostile disposition toward the deceased. The Jury are, therefore, to consider that if the fact of wilful killing is otherwise proved, it is not necessary to prove any motive to constitute the crime of murder—when the question is upon the fact itself, whether the accused did wilfully cause the death of the deceased, the presence or absence of any motive to the act, is a very important circumstance in estimating the force and weight of the other evidence. This distinction is more important, and more folly presented to the jury in the present case, because the charge against the defendant rests wholly on circumstantial evidence. The fact which constitutes the crime which is charged in this indictment against the defendant, and which is denied by her plea of not guilty, and thus put in issue, is that the deceased died by poison, that it was wilfully and purposely prepared by the defendant, with the design of destroying his life,—that it was administered to him by her, with her own hand, or through some other agency, and that he died from that cause. It is obvious, from a general view of the evi- dence, that there is no positive evidence of the (act that she wilfully prepared and administered the poison, which is essential to the proof of the crime :—that is, there is no witness who pro- fesses to have seen the act done. It is there- fore to be proved, if proved at all, by circum- stances, which taken altogether, are of so con- clusive a character that they conclude to the proof of the fact, and leave no reasonable doubt upon the mind of its actual truth. These circumstances may be stated, in gen- eral terms to be, that the post mortem examina- tion and detection of arsenic in the stomach of the deceased, taken in connexion with the symp- toms of his sickness, shew that he died by ar- senic—that she was so situated that she could have prepared and administered it—that such was her language tand conduct, preceding, at the time of and subsequent to his death, as to lead to a strong belief that she did wilfully pre- pare and administer the poisonous drug; and that any and all ether suppcsable modes of ac- counting for the facts are too remote and im- probable to be entertained; and that these cir- 58 cumstances, taken together, are of so conclusive a character, as to leave no reasonable doubt of the truth of the fact charged. If it fails of sat- isfying these conditions, and if it does leave a reasonable doubt, then the defendant will be entitled to an acquital. In considering the distinctions between posi- tive and circumstantial evidence, each has its advantages and disadvantages. In case of posi- tive evidence, where credit can be placed upon the witnesses, it they are persons of good char- acter, free from all suspicion or participation in the alleged crime, and without interest or appa- rent prejudice, their testimony to the fact on their own knowledge, is more satisfactory than circumstantial evidence, because it points direct- ly to the facts to be proved, and avoids the dan- ger arising from any error or infirmity of judg- ment in drawing inferences from other facts.— But the witness, or even two or more witnesses, may be entitled to very little credit-, they may have a deep interest in screening themselves, and may do it by concealment and perjury. They may be of infamous character for truth, or other- wise shown to be unworthy of credit. It is quite obvious therefore, that positive evidence may or may not be satisfactory. Circumstantial evidenee depends, in the first instance, like positive, upon the credit due to the witnesses who testify to the facts, and then upon the pertinency and correctness of the in- ferences the jury may draw from the facts prov- ed ; and thus circumstantial evidence is expos- ed to one additional source of error, that does not affect positive testimony. But it is consid- ered as a setoff to this, that as the different cir- cumstances to be proved ofien come from differ- ent witnesses, there is much less room lor com- bination and contrivance, and that a well con-" nected train of cireumstances can hardly be in- vented by art and contrivance which can lead to a false conclusion, and which must be detected by some of the various tests which experience has suggested the modes of applying. In weighing circumstantial evidence, several considerations are to be kept steadily in view. 1st. The facts from which an inference is to be drawn, thai is the circumstances must all be proved by competent and satisfactory evi- dence, and each by the separate and indepen dant proof offered to sustain it. 2d. That they must be exclusive of any other rearonable or probable hypothesis, which does not include the fact sought to be proved. If all the facts and circumstances proved may be true and do tot conclude to the guilt of the accused ; or in other words if all the facte proved may be true and yet the defendant be innocent, they do not constitute thai body of proof beyond reason able doubt, which i.i necessary to establish the charge. In considering various hypotheses suggested for the purpose of accounting for the facts, con- sistent with the innocence ot the party, it is not enoHgh, however, to suggest a remote, bare pos- bibility that the death might have occurred, or the poison his drug been received in some other way than that charged in the indictment, es- pecially if a probable ground has been shown by the evidence offered to support the allegation; but if the facts, or all the proof taken together, can be accounted for, by any reasonable and natural supposition of facts which may be con- sistent alike with the innocence or the guilt of the accused, they are not sufficiently conclusive to amount to legal proof of the fact. Nor would a mere probability, where the evidence of guilt barely preponderates, be sufficient. It must be that which so far excludes all other suppositions as to place the guilt of the accused beyond reas- onable doubt. One other remark of a general character is to be submitted to the jury, in connexion with a statement of the legal principle respecting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the conductors of the prosecution to es- tablish the fact charged, to wit, that the defend- ant wilfully prepared, and purposely adminis- tered the poison, by herself or by some other means. Supposing it proved that the deceased died by arsenic, and supposing the government offered some evidence tending to prove it; then if the defendant offer proof in support of the probability that the finding of the poison in the stomach of the deceased, may have been caused by some other means, it is not necessary for her to prove the truth of such supposition;— that is, that it did happen in such other way.— It is sufficient if the proof leaves the jury in doubt whether it happened in one or the other of the two modes. By way ot illustration; if all the evidence left it in doubt whether, if the poison was wilfully administered by any body, it was by the will and design of the accused, or by the deceased himself, and the evidence left it in doubt by which, it would not be conclusive of the guilt of the defendant. The presumption of law is, in the outset, that the party accused is innocent, and unless the proof rebuts that presumption, and conclusively proves the guilt of the defendant, she will be en- titled to a verdict. That proof is to be consid- ered according to the rules which have been already suggested in regard to circumstan- tial evidence. These are all the principles of the law which 1 apprehend are applica- ble to this case ; and it is for you, gentleman, to consider and apply them. I do not think it necessary to go over the evidence minutely, it having been thoroughly argued and I shall allude to it as facts under- stood by you. You have the testimony of Mr. Goodwin as to the sediment in the tea which the deceased drank on Saturday night. He says that he saw a sediment in the tea. If there was, was it arsenic ? Was it put there by the defend- ant, and if so was it wilfully done with the de- sign to destroy the life of the deceased. All this must be proved or it does not touch the defendant. One of the facts relied on is the sick- ness ol the witness, Mr. Goodwin. Could the tea have been the only cause of that sickness ' If the watching, the fetid odor and other caus- es might reasonably have produced it, it would lead to no conclusion against the defendant. If another bad drank of the tea and been injured 59 ^ it, and it was shown to have been the effect ol arsenic, that would have been a strong cir- cumstance; but before you can come to that con- clusion, it must be proved that the sickness was caused by arsenic in the tea. The white sedi- ment is too slight a circumstance of itself, be- cause any other white substance might have been there, without the presence of arsenic ; and it is here necessary for me to caution you against heaping suspicion on suspicion, to arrive at a conclusion. It does not follow that because ar- senic was found in the body of the decesed, it was conveyed there by the tea, because it might readily happen from other causes. But, gentlemen, I must hasten over these circumstances. If the facts in the case, can be reasonably accounted for, consistent with the innocence of the defendant, she is entitled to an acquittal. The Government must not only prove that the death was by poison, but must also prove that the defendant wilfully administer- ed it, before she can be plased on her defence ; for the proof of poison as the cause of the death, would not alone, require any defence on her part. The learned Attorney General, in his able argument stated that in charges of poisoning, in order to convict, you must have proof that the drug was found in the body of the deceased, and that he died of it. But you must go one step further, and prove that it was wilfully given, as it might have been done by accident or mis- take. This is the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, which must be the foundation of the charge. As to posibility, that the death may have been produced by another cause, it must not be bare posibility, but a reasonable possibility founded on rational causes, and not a remote contingent possibility. If the proof is that the deceased party has been exposed to two causes of death, and a doubt is left between the two, there can be no certain conclusion drawn as to either and the crime is not established. It seems that the deceased went to Dr Bachel- der, some days previous to his death, for medi- cal advice, though, probably from shame of his disease, he did not give his nime. One of the suppositims for the defence is, that the death may have been caused from that source. Now as it regaids that practice, Dr Bachelder says he did not administer the bowel pill till Saturday evening. Gentlemen, it is for you to consider testimony, and when one witness is contradicted by another, you must weigh il. Dr Harrington says that Dr Bachelder told him he did before that administer that pill to the deceased. It is stated to vou by the physicians, that ar- senic i-t administered in the particular disease for which the deceased was under treatment, yet if you are satisfied, that in this case it was skillfully used by Dr Bachelder, if at all, it can- not account far the quantity of arsenic alleged to have been found in the deceased. But the bowel piB is not shown in its component parts, and Dr Bachelder is contradicted in his state- ment that h never used arsenic as a remedy. You will consider the grounds upon which this suggestion is made, that the poison was ad- ministered in these forms, by wint of skill, mis- take or accident. But the more important suggestion is that tbe deceased came to his death by suicide. It is not, however, aa if he were on trial, or his memory on trial, if such a thing could be, that you are to apply the evidence to this inquiry, because if the fact of suicide were then left in doubt, upon the evidence, he could not be convicted. The dead man is not on trial, and your vordict should not and cannot affect him. The question to be considered here is, that it the rational ground for believing that the death was by suicide, lead to doubt whether the defendant did it, you must acquit. On this point the evidence is that the deceas- ed had given indications of being tired of life ; that he had been to a physician to prescribe for an odious disease; and that the burden of life being heavy, and this disease breaking out, led to the commission of suicide; and if so, it would put an end to the case, without further inquiry. It appears that he was insolvent at his death, and owed about $2000, and that after jthe settlement of the estate, including his wife's property, which by law was his, although she kept a milliner's shop, the expenses and charges left but eighty- nine dollars which was allowed to the widow by the Jndge of Probate. Well, that is not a very strong circumstance, for it is by no means un- commoa for men who are in debt or insolvent, to get along without committing suicide. So of intemperance and gaming ; but you are to take it all together, and judge of it, in connexion with his temperament, threats or other indica- tions of such a tendency. In this relation it is your duty to consider the testimony of Mr Ed- ward L. Tucker, to whom, if he is to be believ- ed, the deceased had s*id that he had once at tempted his life, and that, at times, he did not know whether to go home to his wife, or to make way with himself. His testimony is called in question, and this is for your determination.— He appears here with some zeal,but I see nothing in his testimony that does not entitle hi.ii to a reasonable belief. As to his volunteering, and writing a letter, offering to be a witness, it is to be supposed that when a matter like this goes abroad in the newspapers, it is likely to lead to suggestions ot evidence, and produce calls for witnesses. If then, upon the evidence, the suppositions of murder or suicide, as the cause of the death, are equally probable, you can infer neither, and suicide would be as rational as murder. Both these iconclusions are unreasonable a priori.— He dies of poison, and in the absence of evi- dence, as to who administered it, it might as well have been the husband as the wife. It is not a mere preponderance of probabilities be- tween the two, but to arrive at the conclusion of guilt, the evidence must exclude all other reasonable conclusions. It has been said, in the argument for the pros ecution, that a man will not avow a purpose of suicide, if he intends to commit it. But it may be intimated before the purpose is fully formed, 6(1 and this would have a tendency to show that his mind was brooding over it, as one of the modes of escaping tbe ills of life. In this connexion you will consider the bearing of the several in- timations of such a purpose, as testified by the witnesses. The supposed contradictory statements of the defendant, as to the c use of her husband's death, are relied on as proof of guilt Of the bearing of these you will judge. One mode of account- ing for her different statements at different times may be this. There is no evidence of her know ing that he was affected with a disgraceful dis- ease, until Saturday evening preceeding his death. He had, as was then supposed, been laboring under cholera, and he had concealed from his wife that he had been taking medicine for another disease. At that time he was in ex tremis, and he found it necessary to disclose to her, or was prevailed on :o do so, that he had been to Dr Bachelder. This led to sending for him, and when she showed him into her hus- band's room, she says "There is the man you have given medicine to,and you know for what." When, after the death, Dr Storer suggested to her that the deceased might have died by poison administertd by himself, she said "No, I do no: think George could have done it," as if attribut- ing his death then, in her own mind, to cholera or to what had occurred between him and Dr. Bachelder. Subsequently, when Miss Collins had been to Dr Storer, and learned that poison had been found in the deceased,and returned and told It to the defendant, she then said, "Would to God that he would show the myslery why George had done it." The suggestion of the Counsel for the defence, in explanation of this apparent contradiction is, that when the reply to Dr Storer was made, she did not know that poi- son had been found and was in doubt as to the cause of the death, but on learning that fact, the suspicion of suie'de was entertained. It is also suggested, that lo the world gener- ally, she did not wish to admit the idea of death by his own hand, aud therefore, she would not disclose it or repel it. At another time she said to Mi»s -Hosford, the niece, in alluding to the condition she had seen him in, on a particular occasion, when excited by liquor, that perhaps he was taken away in mercy. Now, gentlemen, when placed in the situation the prisoner was, it is difficult to say how a person would act, es- pecially when there were intimations that the party herself, might be called upon to answer for the death. The very apprehension of being brought to a public trial is what a woman, though innocent, would greatly dread, and the different remarks and views, and apparent con- tradictions in the defendant, may thus be ac- counted for. You will recollect another conversation at Thetford. She then intimated that her husband had died by his own hand, and that he exclaim- ed, /Oh God! have I killed myself!' Now this may be taken, either as an intimation of direct agency, by suicide, or that he had brought upon himself a series of evils that had resulted in death. This is in evidence. It comes from her, and in fact what she and the deceased have said, consUtutes a large part of tlie testimony. We have at times apprehended that it was tak- ing too wide a range, but it has been difficult to limit it, because open to the question whether he may have accelerated his death. You have been asked what amount of circum- stantial evidence you will require, in order to convict. The amount necessary, is first that the facts are ull proved beyond reasonable doubt, and second, that the conclusions are correctly drawn, and exclude all other fair conclusions. That is the amount of evidence required, and if the facts cannot be proved, the prisoner must be acquitted ; and although the party might be discharged from this bar, and universal suspi- cion still rest upon the public mind, the ver- dict is right, because the evidence is in doubt. So far as there is proof of any attempt to con- ceal and pervert the truth, it is evidence tending to show guilt; and on the other hand, if the defendant has facilitated inquiry,and not objected to investigations that might expose guilt,if it ex- isted,itis to betaken as proof of innocence; and in this light you will consider the readiness with which the defendant assented to the postmortem examination. It could not have been held, ifshe bad objected to it. and indeed they had no right to do it, but by her consent, although it was an interesting case, in which, as a matter of science, such a course was desirable and proper. The attempt to obtain a certificate of death by cholera, is strongly urged against the accus- ed. Now, if believing that her husband died of poison, she asked tor a certificate of cholera, that would be a strong circumstance, and here the precise time of the request, is very material. If it were on Tuesday or after she had heard of suspicions against herself, and before she knew the doctors had changed their first impressions as to cholera, and detected poison, it would be natural, but it after she knew the death was by poison, she applied for a certificate, it would lead to an opposite conclusion. The fact of finding the poison, was not made known to her, by Dr Storer, until the Sunday after the death, and she applied for the certificate on Tuesday or Wednesday. Another fact is in evidence that she told Dr Sterer she had been pointed out as the poisoner, before she knew the poison was found, and this is supposed to have been an outbreak of conscious guilt before accu- sation. On the other hand, it is said that rumors and reports were then in circulation. Were there such surmises at that time? It appears that Dr Storer did not pronounce an opinion that the death was from poison, until the chem- ical analysis was made, and yet on Sunday, the day of the death, he had said to Dr Hildreth " if you will keep our secret we will tell you there were indications of poison." There were surmises then of poison, and when were the ru- mors afloat' Cheatham and Ridley say that they did hear such remarks, in connexion with the defendant, in the crowd at the fuderal. It may be true that she did not hear what they did, * 61 but if they heandit spoken of, probably it was spoken of by others, and i,f by others she may have heard it, and if she did, it repels the infer- ence of preconceived apprehension before sus- picion. I*. becomes necessary here to allude to another circumstance, the alleged design to coyer up the real cause of the death, and convey the impress- Em that cholera was in the family, by the occur- rences of Thursday morning ; but the first, and most material point,is to show that thedefendan must have put arsenic into some of the articles used at the breakfast. Now the fact is thatshe was sick herself, after the breakfast, and to re- pel this, it is suggested that she did not intend to take life, and only to produce sickness and not to kill ; but before you reach this, you must be satisfied that she put arsenic into the food. The fact on which this theory is built is, that blue paper was found, marked 'poison.' Did it contain arsenic, and did she put it in the food ? if so, the inference is established ; but if these facts are in doubt, it fails. There are a great many other circumstances in the case, but it is not necessary to go over them. With respect lo the purchasing of arsenic at Dr Mead's shop, it is entirely out of the ques- tion ; it is not proved that she was the woman who bought it, nor is the transaction in any way traced to her. Then, gentlemen, consider the conduct ofthe prisoner before and while her hus- band was sick. It appears that they had lived happily together, that no known differences or dissensions existed,and on the whole her conduct ipthis respect, appears to be free from blame. Now, conduct of this sort, jn the relations be- twen the parties, or in the last sickness, is not material of itself, but in a charge of administer- ing poison, where one of two may have done it, the husband or the wife, that conduct favors the supposition that she did not do it. One of the suggestions on the part of the pros- ecution is contrivance and preparation with re- ference to the act, and if there had been any such, it would be a strong circumstance. It is urged, in this connexion, that with reference to the events of the Thnrsday breakfast, she sent her little daughter out ofthe way to Vermont; but if there are other natural cause for the child's going, such as that she was rendered nervous by discovering the blood on the dead body, or that she was attached to Harriet Hosford, who was going to Thetford, and her mother intending to follow ; that circumstance can have no bear- ing in the case. So in all other supposed indi- cations of contrivance, the question is whether there is any thing in the proceedings and con- duct of the defendant that shows there was prep- aration and design, which cannot be reasonably attributed to some other cause, consistent with her innocence. The learned counsel tor the defence alluded to several circumstances that are entitled to weight. She sent for Mrs Varney, and desired her to come as soon possible, and when Miss Collins, who was residing in the house, was going away to pass Saturday at Charlestown, Mrs Kinney urged her to come bapk,and*he did. Was this consistent rwitii the fact that she was meditating this crime > if so, would she send for persons to De present, who might1be witnesses against her, or would Bhe getaHshccould out ofthe way. Another circumslauce aelUtd on, is her tel- ling Dr. Bachelder that she feared her husband would riot get well, and giving as a reason, that a former husband had died much in the same way. Now if it were proved, or were capable of proof in this trial, thata former husband died of poisen, it would have weight; but if she then supposed the sickness to be cholera and her former husband had died of it, or a similar dis- ease, It was natural she should express fears.— In all matters of conduct and expressions under circumstances like these, it is difficult to tell what a person may do : the facts are before you, judge you. If she were desirous of preserving her husband's memory fcom blame, and at the same time knew his failings and habits, she might express he; self stronger or differently, to some than to others. Thus she told his niece. Harriet Hosford, of his dissipation, but desired she would not mention it to others, while to others she might decline speaking ofit,or give a differ- ent impression. With regard to motive you will judge of its weight in the case. The suggestion by the Government is, that incited by jealousy at the discovery of thesecret condition ofthe husband, she was impelled to take his life. On the other hand it is urged that the harmony between them and the kindness ofthe wife, to the last, repel the suggestion of any such motive ; and it is in evi- dence that the husband used the certainly strong expression in regard to the conduct ofthe wife, that he never saw a scowl on her face. It is also contended that the question of motive goes stronger to prove suicide by him than murder by her ; and in this view it is therefore a compari- son of motive. I will not detain you longer upon a review of the evidence, as I should have done had I time to go over it, and you were not fatigued to-night by the great length of the trial. But gentle- men, .the case is one of circumstantial evidence, and it is necessary for the Government to make out to your satisfaction, that the crime was com- mitted, that tbe defendant knowingly and wilful- ly administered the poison, by herself or an- other, and that death ensued. If on a full con- sideration of the evidence all of these facts are not made out, then there is no sufficient ground for a conviction ; or if a reasonable doubt rests upon the facts, then she is entitled to an acquital. I have no doubt you will give to the case all the consideration it deseives, and ren- der such a verdict as your duty to the commu- nity requires, and that will be satisfactory to yourselves and to the ceuntry. [The Jury were absent from their seats three . minutes, and returned with a verdict of Not GurtTY. The announcement was received with an applause that could not be repressed, and af- 63 ter Mrs K. was discharged, the crowd went down into the street, and. gave expression to their feelings in cheers. The trial which had begun at 9 o'clock Monday morning, was closed at half past 10 Friday night. Having minutely taken all the testimony and arguments in this case, whioh the Reporter be •J gun with a strong prepossession from public ru- mor, he feels bound injustice to say,'(hat in his opinion, and as far as he knows, that of the en- tire Bar, the Government not only failed to show the guilt of Mrs Kinney, but the evidence proved her innooence, and ought to relieve her from all unjust suspicion. fr-r>F' i « h >( t ol