THE DAILY EVENING TELEGRAPH PHILADELPHIA, SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 18G9. 3 .THE TWITCHELL TRIAL ''Guilty of Murder in the Firtt Degree, The Closing Arguments, and Judge Brewster s Charge to the Jury in Full. Yesterday was the sevsnteeoth and final day of ihe pioi tciiings in tue cure of young George IS. 1 wilchell, wli) wns charged wi'.h the murder of Airs. Mry K. Hill. Tuo afternoon session wm belter attcnd-.'d than any preceding one. if The rrowd sat pmlently tbrongli the long ar ;u i weut of Mr. Mann, and thi n listened with a zest I to the uiagnirieent closing speech of District Attorney Sbeppard, who, as lie Mann bad paid, 5 "went ut the evidence with a full and vigorous 1 Inind, and presented it lu a wanner that was L rinnllintf " Tbcn came the able document on circum stantial evidence and the full review ot tbe evidence by Judge Brewster. The jury at 8 40 -retired, and returned ut u-15, wtieii tbequet In the court-room wr.3 really oppres3ive. At lust (it teemed a very, very long time) the jury and the prisoner arose and facod each other. Mr. (iallon, the clerk, then said: -1 Gentlemen ol the Jury, have you agree! upon u verdict? Foreman We have. Clerk tientieruen of the jury, how Bay you? Do jou fiud Georpe S. Twitcbeli, Jr., tue pri I poncr at the bar, gatlity ot ths felony of muder, 5 -whereof he stand indicted, or not guilty? Foreman Guilty. ( Ink In what degree? Foreman First decree. Crier The Court sund3 adjourned until to morrow morning at teu o'clock. Clear the court room. On the foreman saying "Guilty," Twitchcli clasped bis hand together, rmsea hi9 eye up ward, and muttered some words. He was seized around the noes andborne'.down to the bench by hi friend Mr. McCalty, who has eat with him all through the Ions days ot the trial. The father ot the prisouer sat In fiontof the dock with bis head resting ou the iron railing, weepiutr. At 9'30 the prisoner was removed to his louely cell lu Moyamenslng. His demeanor during these trjirjg moments was that ot rigid Indifference, and instead ot being cod aoled with he was consoling the two who were manifesting so much concern in his welfare. The tollowiDg are the speeches oi Mr. Mann and District Attorney Sheppard: Mr. Mann ie&utned, saying he may have mis conceived trie otjject ot Ue juror in asking hbiut the t-hirt, iiud, he consequently recurred to it amiiu. It the prisoner put his shirt ou al'ier going up ttalrn blood niieht have flirted on it when be buttuued his cuat. He thoughl there was no te.tiiiiouv to bhw that the blood ion the bhirl was fluid or diluted O'ood. Wbeu lie went up stairs he hud blood ull over his coat, even to the fcKtrts, and the throwing oi the c:t off might have flirted the bloo 1 over the shirt. There was evidence, no matter Low it hid beeu enipgered tit. to show that a dog had been upon the shirt. It the stains wero trow blood, tueu how soaked the out must have beeu to havo made them! It was as fair, tar more mercitul and true, to take other suggestions as to bow tne b.ood got on the shirt than that of the Commonwealth, that it got on while the man ' was beating his mother's brains out w.'i a iioker. He read lroiu the Loudon Liucet, of s'nvembcr 21, furnished by Professor Gross the ;: elder, an account o! a rnau baring been beaten over the head with a poker, tbe poker being much bent but the man not killed. If the jury rejected all said by the defense as to the blood cu the shirt, and could conjecture in their own minds a menus by wb. cb. the blood could have pot on tho shirt o.h r than suggested by the .Commonwealth, then tuis ca?e was for tue deietise. Mr. Henderson had not beeu permit ted to tell what Mrs. Hill told him as to the pluee she carried her money. She had $35,000 in money two year- ago, and exprnded $16 U00 for the bous-e aud $2000 or $5000 tor the lurui-. tore. Lhe then had a laige amount of mouey left and no batik acc unt. If this murJer was not for this money, why did the Commonwealth bave the cesspool cleaued and rakei to hud it? This misHiug money is oue of the great truths that paralyzes this case. If the money had been louud upon tue prisoner, or if they had proven where he hid it, theu they wojld have had him fastened as was Probst. The dintug-rootu was never visited by Sarab Campbell, aud tne body in that room was safe troui her view. Wny the necessity ot tbts prisoner throwing it out of the window? It was difficult perhaps to conceive why another man would throw tue body out of the window; but suppose, alter o '.e or two blows were given in the room, the body had been thrown to another man on watch In the yard, who would have rifled it at ease in the yard. Had any one a.oDoed in the room to rifle tbe body they might have beeu surprised by Twitchell coming out of the room, and they would nave nan no cnance of escape. This is not halt as strange as to suppose George ri. Twitchell would commit this murder and go to bed, leaving his bio dy cuds nbout. alter niacins the body exactly where Earah Campbell would see it. And all lor what? To get po'sessioa of a house that could not be his. for bv the death of Mrs. Hill it would be his wile'.. The murderers may have taken the verv caudle wntcu Airs. Hill bad. ana tone over the premises. It may be that one ot the men was secreted in tne nou.-.e, aud let tne other in. It may be that some one, pretending to be a becear. misiht examine the lock and make lal-e kevs. bupnose a letter had bean Brut her mat loiportaul information would be sent her at 9 o'clock. Most likely she was bleeping with her head in her hand; but did the puker ever cut the linger oil ? Would not a iow from a poker have bruised all the fingers, but l evir have eat one oil ? 5 Mr. Mann concluded by warning the Jury that if thev rendered a verdict of aunty lu this case the prisoter's blood would cl ug to them. If this prisoner is sot acuoi.ted theu there is no reliability on human testimony. No attempt had been made to introduce lalse evideuce, but reliable witness had been examined. If he were on this jury he would sUa I oat uutil the crack of doom. He warned the Jury not to be terrified or seduced bv tbe aopeiU ot the District Attorney, who had reu.aiued passive nnlv ta rrather un his Ip.phI imintu annul thn jury- i jjittrtct Attorney Bnepp.ira arose amidst a f silence which ha been but teldon noticed in L lid pmirLrnnni. Hlld fluid Tll io pdod la nr.f nna of professional or personal rivalry. Nor can It be made tbe subject or a triendlv contest be tween any of the counsel. I feel too strongly and oppressively the re-p usibduy, to allow mvself to be distracted by auy such unwarrantable or miimnortaut consideration. Nor shall I under take to ilval tbe learned gentleman wbo has just taken his seat, in his nub aud profuse eloquence. His ca?e mav have required all s its ot ad tru- ruents aud illustrations and the help of rhetoric. 1 i. hall not undertake to etu'il ite biui in disuiay. lor I Dfiesess none ol those Qualities. All I de-tire to do is simply and pltioly, and In as fe words as nossible. to call vour attention to what 1 consider to be tbe material facts ot tula case. It is a very important one. This waole com munl'y has watched it fiom Us commencement until now, aud the auxtity is tnienslded as tue rne draws to a cloe. This little jury-oox demands to a wider horizon tnat ot our entire (ctuimunitv. You have seeo Hie iulicatious of the lute use anxiety of the public on this subject I by tbe crowds presenf. 1 tell you that if there lis nnv miscsrtiage ot public jusuee pere, a very beavv resoonsibilitv will rot un in some one, The Common wealth's odienrs have doue their outj; tbey have left noililue undone. xue A'ourt will do its duty: but aftr all. It rets vpoo tbe twelve lurymen whom i see before me; t rests upia inch and every oue or tne twelve. Tne eicbt or nine tuont-acd people wno ae acre wa'chlna this casa will relude it atie; it Ibad have p isfed from your bauds, Tbey are waiting to see whether this sort of homicidal violence is to ha checked or to be encoaragrd. They are waiting to see wue her it la to be met and lebuked, when it does not spare the weak- v - eta oi age, nor the de.encelessnebs of women, nor tbe qnlet of a fireside, nor the sanctity of a Cbnstlau Sabbatb. Now, pentlrroen, let us look at It. Let u examine it calmly with a sense of the respou-i-Mlity that rests apon us all, and of oar aootiut ability when we walk out of this court bouso. There baa been so much said by tbe learned pentlemen that has been scattered over the cae, that Is not in the cae, that I propose to lake our bearings again to see how far we have been dtiftlng away from the real point of luquirv, and it Is thee igne fatui which havo b:cn creeping around the carp. Let us undcrstmd one anolhor. The l!t sentence which lell iron the lip of Mr. M mi re-ecboed the first sentence of his predecessor. Itbegan with circumstantial evidence, and it h is enoed in circumstantial evideuce. That Is tlio i-carecrow that is set up bere to affright this jury. I say scarecrow deliberately, an I ot course respectfully. I want to say what are the principles that govern cases of this sort. It all crimes were committed openly, or If crimi nals would be roobt'Ring as to contess their rrimes. there would be fewer ca-e of clrcurn ptautlal evidence. But so long as they will commit them In quiet, then so long there must bu circumstantial oaes ot murder. (leutlem'u, the moment you begin to under estimate cir cumstantial evidence, jou are piving liberty to murderers. It Is necessary and lawful to acs upon circumstautHl evidence, aud the Court will to instruct you. There are about eleven or twelve cues col lated together as evideuce of utijust couvict.ons, and they have for years formed the stock in Hade of lawyers la defending criminals "to alarm weak juries." But, like tbe scarecrow m the play, we now know tt is nothing but ras. The whole thing la well understood in tbe pro lession. Circumstantial evidence, with direct evincr.ee, niust be scrutinized, aud when yoa do that, you can not fail to notice the strong links in ttiih particular cate. Let us commence at the beginning, aud take the actor in this bloody drama. 1 he tlrst thing we have is the ringing el the bell. It alarms tbe inmates of tbe house. Tbe door of tbe kttchen is open, and the bell is at the kitchen, to that there is no difficulty about the truusinis-t-ion of pom d. The bell was rum; six times without a pause between each nuking, and closing with a violent ringing, aud it was heard in the next house in the cellar, through walls, so violently was it rung, aud yet lu this house, with an open kitchen door, in tbe silence of the night, it was not heard, we are aked to suppose. But tbey say Mr. and Mrs. Twitchell were at-leep. That is a suggestion of counsel, and not the evideuce. You are sworn to try according to the evidence, and not by what the lawyer may say. There is at last an answer to tbe ringing. Mark tbe man 1 He comes to tbe door, and It Is a significant question he aked "V here can mother be ?" It might be a proper question for tbe servaut to ak, but for him, iuhide the house, is oue of the footprints of ciime. The only object was to start the girl ou a search to find a body apparently murdered. The girl says, "We'll see." It Is important to see where mother is. It is au assertion of coumel that he went to her r.iom to look, but it it-nopnit of tbe evidence, and will be kicked out ot the cose with a great deal ol other matter introduced in the same way. But he goes up s;airs, rassmg tue Kitcneu door open and a current of air passing and a candle ou the table, not being attracted by tuese tbiugs. He marches to the door aud comes bacs a'.'aiu wi i bout looking luto that open kltcheu! And jet he Is in search for somebody. He sees it open and yet makes no search. How was it possible tor him, an innocent man, to luce that current of air in that long entry, nkbont going to atceitaiu what it meant? He goes up stairs. Wuat he does we do iiot know. He is called, aud answers with "what?" but be dou't come down, aud she to call him a second time aud urge him to come down "Ja-t," and theu he takes the longest way down by tbe front instead of the back stairs. hen he came bcaked no questions of the ervaiit girl; does not inquire tbe obect of the call, al. bough tbey had btarted to dud '-where notnerwes." xne girt tens mm Jir. tun is lying there, and alter he is told tnac M. Ildl is there, he iuciuircs. "My God. what is this!" Then sbe is curried in; but he makes no exami nation ot her body to ascertain where aud how slie is itjund; but you have a ctll for water aud a doctor, lie commenced tue sopping of the head, a thing of no value to the living or tne dead, out it gave nim time something to do. He possesses our human nature, aid wbeu his mother in-law is killed, he would naturally iksire to know how and when it was doue. He made no request for au examination, aud hen the examination is made be does not ask the result. Unless he possessed the guilty knowledge which the Cjiumouwealth allege be d d, would ne not nave inquired ? He is told iliut he or his wile committed that murder, aud he is silent. At the station house be is asked if he needed counsel, aud he says 'No it is a latality." He did not know then that thre were nveniemoers ot tue oar wno could wma hun as white us driven snow! Nowhere is there any evideuce that he denied the m ir ler. To Mr. Montgomery he said, "Do jou believe 1 did tL is V and that is all he said. Nay, more, the admission at the station house was a sur render to the force of tbo case, "Tuere is a latality about it; there is no need of counsel." And tbere is a intauty aoout crime, aud ibis man, when confronted with his own acts, yielded to the force of his own act. Next, you hate this man's bloody clothing, thn blood on the two knobs of the door, tbe bload in his bed, and the blood in the towel and the other arti cles. First, ho Is the only man In the honse; second. bl6 conduct Is inconsisteut with Innocence; next, bis clothes are covered with blood; next, he made no allegation tbat anybody else com mitted the deed. That was an afterthought; but that night he made no auoh allegation, aud he nave au untrae account bv savins tbat the body fell out the window, and finally that be submits to late, for tbe tact are against him. Tbete circumstances demand a conviction. If tbe defense does not meet this it has failed. It is no defense to show that there is a possibdity that other causes could have produced these results. It is a question of fairness aud rea sonableness. The most extravagant things are possible,, but the jury must not fall into i bis mistake. The detem-e asks yoa to say that btcuunc it is possible with the lingers to flirt blood over a shirt bosom, ibeieiorc. it is possible tbat George Twitchell got the blood on his fchirt in that way. Tbe jury is not to take guesses, aud yet that is all tbe defence has presented. Did a third prson enter that bouse and commit tbat murder? It is raid tbat the object ot the murder was plum der. Tbat was not the motive. There Isevl dence that Mrs. Hill carrird mouey on her t cretin. No one heard ot the mouey until Mrs, Twitchell, one ot these defendants, stated to Mr. Morrell. and it cau be understood why tat should start each a story. It was her purpose to give a itaton lor a murder bj a tbird person Horn tbe outside, and tberetore u is sirs. Twitchell who slatted this story. Tbe Common wealth did make a search ot these premi.es and had to go to tbe other aide for permission. It was done to Dud anything counected with the rriae, but money was not the object of search Tbere was no money in tbe case, but those wbo took possea ion ot tbat house with sudIi hot Da te may know something about money ! The oaten-e. with all its guesses, could not expiaiu me lact mat toe o dy was t brown out the winnow except tnat it was more easy to secrete ber person in tuelj arl than in the dining room. It i-he had money it would require less ume io M-iiiuy u irum uer uosoru man to carry tue oouj, inrow uum, meu go lo lue kllcUen ixawine i'. aim meu laae tne longest way through tbe entry. Wbo were the third persons? Alleett is the only man who speaks ot it. And a remarks lact lu his testimony Is, tbat he never Iuforms 'he authorities, 'jut kei plug It back to tho lav day ot ibis trial, comes upon the stand to tell it. But with all bis anxiety, he did not see the doersbutwheu these two meu came out; and when Sarah Campbell came there fifteen minutes afterward, she beard the door unlocked j oai the in'ide. Murderers leaving could not have locked the door inside afterwards, If tbe dror bad not been lucked when tiarah Camtibell came home would it not have attracted the attention of Mr. Twitchell, especially as he was inquiring "Where Is mothet?n How did tbe sti angers get lu ? and what did tbey do, and after they had committed tne murder, did they place tho candle on the table to end a stream of light as Uej passed to the front door? The idea is absurd that two strangers rould enter, and carry tbe body to the wlidow, carrying the raodie down and then leaving the house at 0 o'clock at night with the bloody instrument on their person. Mr Hicppard went over the case at leneth, reviewing every portion of it, referring to the medical testimony and to tbe lact that Dr. Levis' nilcroscop'c examination had not beeu n et by auy thing in tho defense. He closed with ah earnest appeal to tbe iury to c'mg to the lacts, aud to decide tbe cie according to ihe evl'lcnce, and lTft atone. The following is tbe Omrge of Jnrtge Brewster in full: OKtiTLKMaif oTna JraTt It Is now over a frt nliihtslr.oa this trial commenced. During the wbole ol ibis considerably protracted investigation I have noticed Ue marked attention and patlenoe with which you have watched the progress of the oiae Kuch Interest In the dlnchnrge of doty deserves all praise, and tils la especially your due for the uncomplaining manner In which yon have borae tie haidshlpot being separated so long a time, at this season of the year, from your families and from jour dally pursuits. The caee has been pre pared by the counsel on both sides with greivt ability, and has been presented and argued with marked ability and learning. Where their labors end. your task begins. It is tbeieiore my duty to explain to you the law as ap plicable to this case, and to rendor yoa such service as It may be In my power to place at your disposal, to aseUt you In the responsible offloe of applying the law to the faots. I detm It quite unnecessary to remind you that the ease Is ot the first Importance. The community have the rlnht to expect, that the law shall be the eh It Id of the unspotted, and that no guilty nun encares. A defendant has a right equally as sacred when he demands ol us to see to it that no Innocent man Is tunlshed. 1 shall divide what I have to say to yoa into two general heads, the law and the faots. As to the first, I do not understand that there Is any question raised here on either side whloh re quires me to trouble you with definitions of the various grades of homlolde. We understand but this Is entirely for you that Bit IUO CUUUKVI MICO mo w vuw viviuvuv vi "u.n van.. and that Is, that whoever perpetrated this deed was uniitv or murder in the tirst detrree. It being conceded that Mrs. Hill is dead; that her death was the result of unlawful and mallolous vlolenoe, marked with all the elements of premedl tstion and deliberation, I might pass at once from this branoli ol the subject. It is proper, however, tbat In a ease of so much inaptitude nothing should be taken for granted. 1 shall therefore read to you our statute upon this subject. It is In tLeee words: 'All murder which shall be perpretrated by means of passion, or by lying In wait, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing; or whloh shall be oommltted In the perpe t rut ion of or attemnt to nernetrate anv arson, raue, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree, and all other klndsjof murder shall be deemed murder of the seoond degree, and the jury before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, If they rind sooh person guilty thereof, ascertain In their verdict whether k be murder of the first or seoond detrree. ( Aot of March 81. 16U0, S 74. Br. Dig. 230, jj 82.) You will therefor observe that the statute recog nizes two degrees ef murder. Murder Is the uu lawful kllltDg of a human being with malice afore thought, express or implied. When la ad lttlon to these elements the crime Is oommltted with wilful ness, deliberation, and premeditation, It Is murder In the first degree. All other kinds of murder are deemed murder of the seoond decree. Havlrg ascertained the law ot the case we must iw oi mo uwo wo uiu Tl,aaa tit a mm a ir M, n - I text real witn tne laots lrom the evidence. I Mr. Uentham tells us that all evldenos fljws I en Lor irom persons or tilings. Ttese are ice oaiy two souroea iro.ii wu.au wo enn exrect testlmonv. and unless we resolve to let all secret crimes go unpunished, all olvll disputes to remain undecided, and to throw away our reason, we must act upon the statements of per sons or things. I say statements of things, because 11 we consult tne experience oi every ujur we win he taught that inanimate objects have their voice as well as sentient beings. 1. b I, nnl. tli.tl frt. TY1 0 A It, til &f ItfartAnOA others have failed in their etlorts to detect error, he will sit quietly down and perversely reruse to appiy his intelligence to the problems of Hie, whettit,. they enocunter him in the oountlng room or the jury box. rie roignt just bb wen remise i uve iiis ioks, uo cause others have fallen or been killed la walking. He might, with equal propriety, refuse to eat. be cause others have been poisoned while partaking of nourishment. gome persons, admitting tne toroe oi tne princi ple which actually compels us to aot upon evi dence, still Insist tbat nothing but positive testl rnony should produce conviction, and, adhering te naciously to mis lavoriie aogiua. ui tuutse wuo are too timid or tooxweak to exerolse the reasoning faculties with which a kind Providence has en dowed them , they assail all circumstantial evidence. A moment's reflection, however, must satisfy all candid minds of the unsoundness of suoh a propo sition. (Suppose lor a moment tnat mis was toe rule of our being, and that we had been so consti tuted that we could believe nothing unless it were demonstrated to us by oar own senses, or by tho statement of an eye-witness. What would then be our condition 1 ut course, we oouiu not puniau any crime unless It were perpetrated in the presence of sreotators. All secret murders, arsons, burgla ries, lorgeries, ana oiuor uueacts cuuiu ue ooui mitted with impunity. Nor would the mischief stop here, few olvll controversies oould be settled by juries. No book of original entries oould be reoeived in evideuce ; no note er oungaiion wouia avail unions there were a subscribing witness. Indeed, this wonld not be sufficient, for If he died before trial the claim would expire with him. An Insurance on the life of the witness would not even avoid the difficulty, for the policy would die with its attest ing witness. For tbe same reason, all receipts wouiu perien wiiu tuoso wuo oaw iuoiu amuou, uu all our deeds and muniments of title would be swept away by the death of the subscribing witnesses and the magistrates before whom they were acknow ledged. All proof of handwriting by comparison being annihilated, commerce would be destroyed, or remitted to Its Infanoy In barbarous ages. With the abolition or legal punistiment lor crime, moo laws and vigilance committees would supersede the use oi courts and juries, and tbe whole frame, work of society would be Impaired, if not destroyed. Tbe absurdity of tbe prejudice against circum stantial evidence may be still further Illustrated by re beet In g for a moment upon the uses to whloh we constantly and properly apply It. Not only do business men answer letters, pay drafts, and eredlt others to the extent of millions oally upon tbe testimony of clroumstanoes alone, hut they oommendably oarry this faith, as the evi dence of things unseen, into the reasoning whloh oenneots them with the world beyond our o wn. A ttltllEir circumstance the fall of an apple has proved to the satisfaction of philosophers the great laws of gravitation whloh oontrol the motions of the nnlverte. The man who denies the existence of his Maker is properly regarded by many as thereby evidencing his want ol reason. Yet w bat proof have we of this Important and accepted truth except from circumstances! The same kind of testimony Is the prop of our belief la all the great truths of revelation. It we turn from tha world without to the great mechanism within us we see again that no rational man pauses for one Instant to doubt the foroe of olroumstantlal tAStlmonv. W hat evidence have we that It Is a heart that beats or a brain tbat throDS within us, except irom its iinttDat those organs exist la all similarly constituted belugal And we acoept remedies for all the Ills that been is heir to upon precisely the fame faith in olroumstantlal evldenoe. chief Justice uibson has given an excellent tiiiiMntlon of the force of this kind of testimony He says (Uomm. vs. Uarman, 4 Barr, 21i: "You . man difichama a sun at another, von see the hash, yon hear the report, you see the peraon fall a Uieless corpse, and you infer from all these cir cumstances that there was a ball discharged from ti tin. whloh entered his body and caused his death, because such Is the usual and natural oause of suoh an ellect. Hut you did not see the ball leave the gun. pass through the air, and enter the body, and your testimony to the faot of killing is tbereuy vniy luiercaum, iu uvuor wuiua,uuuw mnttnl n The improvements of modern solenoe furnish us ii h neither illustration. You are In a telegraph r dice and see the battery In motion. A message Is rtr.ic-ii. Theit&tlonat tbe other end of the line may be thousands of miles distant. No human eye saw the subtle Hold pass along the wire, and yet you would hardly listen with patlenoe to the man or tie argument undertaking to reason to you that the message might have come through the air or the earth without tbe agency at the wire, and that all your evidence to the oontrary was olroumstan tui. And therefore uDwortnv of regard. In short, a akeptloUm like this weuld open wide tne ooor lor tne perpetration oi in eooroi, oruui, would uprcot our faith In man, and destroy even our belief In a Creator and In a future state. These are some of the evils whloh would how from the declaration ol a principle that we should rejeot all olroumstantlal evldenoe. On the other hand, the advocates of olroumstantlal evldenoe have pushed their preference for this kind of testimony to an extreme length. bv exalting It above the most positive statements. They have oiled the eases of convictions scoured ny perjury, ana nave somewnat exultlngly deolered tbwt " olroumstaaees eannot lie. ' This assertion has In Its turn been de nouscsd, aii. Best speaks f It u i 11 alfltam whloh has led to mischievous results. And, un doubtedly, clroumstanoes may deoelve as, for tbey may be detailed by blessed witnesses, may be ar ranged by enemies, and maybe what Mr. Bentham asd others call 'false faots." To theie or other sources of error may be traced the mistakes oommltted In the eleven eases whloh have been so often relied upon by defendants, and which had been so frequently cited In Judge Story's time, as to be called by htm the eommonplaoes of the law. (U. 8. vs. Ullbert, a Sumner, 19,27.) 'What, then, arc we to conoludet Shall we re fuse to believe our senses because others have erred ! Or shall we resolve to do our whole duty in life, making tbe mistakes of ethers our beaoon lights upon the way t To resolutely eonolude that we will not be gov erned by olroumstantlal evldenoe, is, as wc hare seen, to cloeo our courts of justloe. It Is susceptible of demonstration that positive testimony has produced very many unfortunate re sults. Falsehood generally fabricates dlreot evi dence. And we could not even act upon confessions of guilt, for tbe trials of the Perrys, and of Captain Green and his crew, (14 Howell's State Trials, 1,109 to 1,824.) show that the fullest admissions ol guilt eannot be relied upon. In the tirst ease John Perry actually acknowledged tbat he was acces sory to tie murder of a Mr. Harrison, wbo ap peared in lull lite after the exeoutlon of the defen dant. Let us, then, endeavor to ascertain the rules which should govern us In our efforts to roaoh the truth In a particular case. They may be briefly stated thus: ir. We must of coarse guard sgalnst the false statements of witnesses, ibis applies whether the evidence Is positive or ctroumsUntlal, Second. In oases depending upon clroumstanoes we must take eare to see that tbey could not have been arranged by others. Having thus tested the existence of the circumstances, we must apply the following rules, in order to decldo upon their force or application. Third. We should draw therefrom no Inferences save those which are entirely fair and natural, and which are reasonably and morally oertaln. f ourth. We must see to It that each faot on which we rely Is Independently proven, and that eaoh is consistent with tbe otbor. fifth. Faoh circumstance relied on to produce oonv lotion must be consistent with guilt, and with guilt alone. And, latlly. We must guard ourselves most care fully against any preconoelved Ideas, which might lead us to reason Inaocurately from facts in parti cular eases. According to Lord Bacon, there Is a natural ten dency In the human mind to suppose a greater order and conformity In things than aotually exist. Mr. Burrlll (Circumstantial EvMenoo, 206 7) at. tributes this to our indolence, and to our preotplta- tlon, the commission of a great orltneexsltlng an Intense desire to bring the perpetrator to justloe. These, gentlemen, are our guides In every ease. They have been gathered from standard authori ties uncn tbe subieot. and have reoeived tbe sanc tion of my loarned brother, Judge Ijudlow, In his charge to the jury In the ease of Commonwealth vs. miller. (4 Phil. fiep. , 199 ) After a thorough examination of the authorities he thus sums up his views upon this subieot: ' Crimes are often oommltted In seoret, and, but for the fact that ciroumstanttal evldenoe may be produced, would go altogether unpunished. Nor iithero, when closely examined, such HJe dif ference, so far as reliability Is oonoerned, between direct and circumstantial evidence as is sometimes supposed. In dlreot testimony we look for the pre che detail of facts; the witnesses testify to the precise facts In issue at the trial; but suoh are the laws of nature regulating cau?e and effect that a body of faots may be presented so linked together as to produce a firm belief of tho fact to be proven. in direct testimony we may oe miaie 1 by the per- jUry or a witness, and in circumstantial we may "i . - , - r , , , . e deceived by the Inferences whloh we draw from the fails." It follows, then, that we eannot close our eyes or leck up cur reason in this or In any other oase be cause the evidence is circumstantial. Your oaths require you to examine It. '1 he task Is from Its very nature unpleasant, the difficulties may be great, but we must look straight forward and do our whole duty In the light of our consciences and our reason. The truth lies soma where, covered up though it maybe, with a terri ble crime ; but we must seek It out, and if we do so honestly and patiently, we (hall surely find It. ui tnis, we may always ne assurea mat provi dence has given us the means of tracking out and detecting orlme. He has stamped It with the curse tbat It Bhall be discovered, most frequently, In deed, with the hat that it shall be Its own aoonser. The circumstances to wnion 1 am thus atiuut to Invite your attention may be divided here as else where Into two general heads those whloh favor the presumption of guilt, and those whloh point to the supposition of lnnooenoe. The text-writers give to these heads the names of lnoulpatory and exculpatory evidence, and they sab-divide eaoh Into classes whloh are of Interest to the studout, but w blob might tend to our oonfuslon rather than to our enngnienment. You win observe at tne tnresooiu or this exami. nation that vou must give to the defendant at every Btage of your Inquiries the benefit of hi a character, 01 tne presumption ot innooenoa until guilt IB clearly established, and of every reasonable dtubt. ou must apply at eaoh step what Bishop Butler calls "the truest judgment, " and keep steadily in view tee ruies aireaoy enumerateu, xou win also observe that no comment I may make on the e ldence Is In any way binding upon you. All pro cesses 01 reasoning must negia witu some admitted tact. Tbe aamittea laot in tnis ease is tue mur dered bodv of Mrs. Hill. I call this an "admit- ted fact," for the learned oounsel lor the defence have not disputed, and have expressly admitted that the lady was murdered. But, as already re marked, that we may take nothing for granted lu an inquiry of suoh Importance it is neoessary to look at an tne surrounuings to see w net tier tbey repel every presumption of suicide, for It Is well f ir us to accept no concession, and to prove all things. The dead body was found in the yard. You will piobably eonolude that Sirs. Hill was la tbe dining room above, and that her blood was first shed near tne neaa 01 tne soia. r rom tnis oirouinstanoa ana from the number of wounds thirteen being found ui on her head and five on her hands from their appearance, ana espeoiany irom tue aeptn 01 tne wound In the temple, It would seem to be quite Im possible that she oould have oommltted suicide. If, then, you oonolude that this was not a oase of self-murder, you will come at once to the main In quiry of the case, W ho lnfiloted the Inj aries whereof jn rs. nut aieu 1 Tbe Commonwealth contends that tbe murder must have been oommltted by a person or persons living In the honse. The deienoe insists mat tne onme was perpetrated bv a burglar. Let us marshal the faots under these separate nesas: The alley gates were found fastened; the shut- t CI UIUIOU I lli. IDUk. UU1I1J UlDUj RUU UUIUMHU, There were, aooordlng to Officer warnook, no stains or spots on the fenoe and the side-door leading out on the verandah, while the gates and shutters were all secured. There was no unusual disturb ance ol the furniture. A lighted oandle was found on the kitchen table. The gas was burning dimly in the dining room. The Commonwealth oontenda that none of these facts point towards a burglarious entrance of the premltes, and she relies further In this behalf on tbe presence of the four dogs In the house, the early hour of the night, tbe passing by of oltlzens, the presence of K, J. Post at the opposite oorner from half past eight to a quarter of nine, and other matters. The only circumstances favoring the assertion of a burglary arc the fast that the baok door of the kitchen ana tne utina uoor Deyona were iouuu opea, end the statement of the defendant's witness. Charles Altiielt. that he saw two men leivetne premises by the frontdoor. If It is suggested that burglars entered by the rear, then yoa arc to oon slder the probability of a man or men ollmblog the fence and entering the house at an early hour, while lights were burning; going upstairs, com mitting a terrible murder, carrying tbe body to tbe rear window, raising thejsash, pitching the body Into the yard, and going down stairs to the lront door without attracting the attention of tho dogs, the Inmates of the house, or any neighbor. As already intimated to you, the defendant re lies in this behalf upon the testimony ol Charles Allgelt. He swears that on the night In question he was at the church at Eleventh aud Lombard streets; that he left about nine o'olook; that the olock struck when he turned Into Eleventh street, ccmlngfrom tbcel-urchi that It might have been two, three, or four minutes when he passed this house, and tbat he saw two men leave Mrs. Hill's house by the front door. The Commonwealth has, on the other hand, proved by Mr. Post that he was at the southeast corner of Tenth and Pine streets from to a quar ter before 9. With the house In full view he no ticed no one enter or leave, and heard no noise Mr. Wayne says ho left Kemble street, above Twelfth street, at nine; that ha walked down Kem ble to Twelfth, down Tweluh to Pine, down floe street on the south side, reaohlng the oorner of Eleventh and Pine at five mlautes past nine He did not meet the two men Alt gelt dosorire, or any man on Pine street, between Tenth and Eleventh streets. He heard no noise Mllo Lord was at the northeast corner of Tenth and Clinton streets, near the ehuroh, at five mm utel past nine. He saw no people coming along Tenth street from Pine, as desorlbed by Altgelt, noisy, laughing, and talking, and he saw no one cross over Tenth street, as stated by Altgelt. Again. Sarah Campbell says tbat when she reached the front door, she rang the bell a number ot times, and, after waiting some time, the defend ant let her In. bhc says, When he let me In, he unlocked the front door. ' If this statement Is correct, It may weigh In your Judgment against the evbience ol Aligolt, for, If the door were looked, two burglars could not be,ve roue out of that door a short time before, locked It behind them, and left the key Inside. The deienoe, anticipating this objection to AH. celt's evidence, have examined Messrs. Wllba', Ihcrp, Cllft, Holt, andUMsldy, to prove tbat the door could be unlocked without making any noise blob would be heard by a person on the outside, Tbey tell us tbat they aotutlly tried tbts experi ment, and although the persona on the step and pavement listened, and although the lock was not gently bandied, still the noise was not heard. On the other hand, Deteotlvc Warnook and Mesirs. Stevens and Atkinson state that the noise can be heard. You mutt weigh these con fl lots of the testimony. When certain witnesses swear that they cannot hear tbe turning of a key In a look, this does not prove that It oannot be heard by others. But, as very muoh In this oase may depend upon this ap parently trilling olroumstanee, you will carefully consider all that has been said uiam this subject. If you find tbat the noise of unlocking the door could not have been heard by Sarah Campbell, then you will, of course, reject that p irtlon of her testimony. If. on the other hand, you believe her statement that tbe defendant unlocked the door, you will have the right to place the fact that the door was locked into the soale against Altgelt' s testimony. Do you believe Altgelt, and that on thenlght In question he saw two men leave Mrs. Hill's front ooor 1 If you do, the defendant's theory of a bur glary would be strengthened or established. If you do not believe him, do you find from the circum stance of the back doors being open, or from any other fact you can reoall, that the premises were unlawfully entered? On this question, which is a most Important In- nnlto. nn mint weigh all the lust inference hear. It g upon this print, as derived cot only from the witnesses and clroumrtanoes I have adverted to, bat also from the position of the body of Mrs. Hill when found. It Is not disputed that she was dts covered In the yard, and It would seem to be dear that she must have been pushed or thrown out of the back window. The Commonwealth has asked you whether it it reasonable to suppose that a burglar would waste the moments, precious for the purposes oj escape, oy car r 11 inn the body into the back room, raisina the win dow, and throwina it into the yard t It Is argued tbat this would not only needlessly prolong his stav urjon the scene 01 his ort ne. out would, by the noise necessarily created, attraot the attention of seme inmate 01 tne nouse. it is aiso contennou tuat tbe disposition of the body not only dlsprovos the assertion of a burglary, but that it points to the oonclnslon that the murder must have been 00m mltted by tome person residing in the houee, and anxious to conceal tne onme or to give it tue ap pearance of suicide. It Is lor the jury, then, to take a oareful review of the whole oase at this point. in support of the allegations or burglary, con sider the open back doors, the evldenoe of Altgelt, and any other faots you oan recall. ab against it, you win remomuer ine condition or the doors, shutters, and gates; the absenoe of marks, footprints, or disturbance; the presence of dogs, persons, and lights In the house, and of neighbours and others outside. incidental to this point is tne consideration 01 the question as to what instrument was used la the perpetration of the orlme. The Commonwealth alleges tbat the murder was oommltted with the ptker, which has been exhibited to you. Sarah Campbell says that It looks like the kitch en poker need In tbat house, and that It was usual ly kept hanging by ti.e range. Ollioer Howard rajs tbat Mr. Jr. A. Morrell picked tt up lu the yard. Mr. F. A. Morrell corroborates this and says he picked it uplylng In the blood or just along side 01 it ; teat tne moon was one or one ana a nan feet from the screen and the poker might have been three Inches further. A portion of it laid la the blood. Mr. Daniel Doster says that Ofllcer How STd brought It lu and someone said, "This Is the thing that did the deed. " This remark, as I un derstand tbe evidence, was made in the presence of the defendant. It Is for you to say how this Is, and whether tho prisoner made any ropiy. Dr. Shanlelgh tells us that this poker might have caused all the wounds he saw, except the fractures. lie also tells us tnat a unman gray nair was at tached to it, and that tbe hair of the de?etsed was gray. Dr. Levis confirms this statement as to the presence of tbe hair, and adds that he also found on the poker fragments of wool and ootton and stains of blood. From all this evldenoe the Com monwealth argues that the poker was the Instru ment used. On the other side. Doctors Gross, Maury, Mitch ell, Thomas, and Paine have been oalled to sap port tbe allegation of the defendant that tbe poker was not the weapon employed. Some of them are of opinion that the wounds oould not have been ln filoted with such an Instrument, and others think that If tbe poker had been used for suoh a purpose It would have been bent or battered. you will remember that It Is not contended by the Ccmmonwoalth that the poker oausod the heavy fraotures desorlbed to you. It Is conceded that they were produced by the fall from the sec ond story window to the yard. You may Inquire on this point, If the poker were not tbe weapon, how oame It that the gray hair and the fragments or wool and ootton beoame at tached to the lront Would they adhere simply because the head of the deeesced and her oap were near the poker or on the poker la tbe yard 1 And, If so, would a person lr. Hiding tbe wounds with some other instrument take the poker from tbe kltohen and put it near or under the oorpse) You are to try this oase by your common-sense views of the ttstlmony. The coincidence of the reliable and sclentlfto ex perts produced by tbe defendant Is entitled to great contlderatlon aud respeot, but tbe mere opinions of a college of protestors should not outweigh a substantial fact, reliably established aud carol ully fuund. We have thus far considered three of the links of the Commonwealth's oase: First. That this was a murder, and not sulol !e. Second. That it was not oommltted by any person urlawlully entering the premises. TAitrf. That the poker was the weapon employed In the nerrotratlon of tbeotlonce. Let us prooeed to take up the other allegatlonsof ue urmmonweaitu. Having exbioiieu tueir tneory upon the points already notloed. they now ask you to find that the defendant was the guilt; gent In the commission of tbts offence. I need hardly remind you here of the Importance of this Inquiry. All the other matters are or great moment, but this outweighs them all. You must, therefore, keep steadily lu view all the presump. tlcns In bis favor, and all the rules governing a case of olroumstantlal evidence, to whloh I have already oalled your attention. It Is contended that the blood-stains establish the defendant's guilt. Tbey may be divided Into two classes: The spots upon the defendant's olothes, and the other marks of blood. Referring to the last first In order, the witnesses say that lu the sitting room there was a large pool on tbe floor, and an aro of blood spots on the walls, terminating on the door, which Dr. Shaplelgh says muet have been a Uttloopen. They also describe tracks of blood by drlpplnas. from tbesofa through the folding- doors to the window, a smear of blood upon tbe lower part of tbe sash, and on the outside ot the building; blood had also flowed or fallen on a piece of oarpet w bloh ran along near the tofa, and a chair near the sofa was spotted with blood. Traoes of blocd were also found on the door knobs. Some or all of these are desorlbed t you by Dr. Shap lelgh, Jno. P. Montgomery, Esq., and Messrs. Doster, Leldy, Howard, Morrell, and Warnook, Detentlve Warnook also describes a spot on the Inside knob, whloh, aooordlng to his statement, appeared to be a drop of blood, the "centre of which hd been oleaned out, but the outlines were perfect. " This apparent cleaning of the spot may have been caused by tbe hands of visitors to the house on tbe night of the murder. The same wit ness desorlbea specks of blood on the marble top table, and on the glass of the gas. burner. He says tbat a drop of blood was also found in tbe back en try, and another drop on the upper part of a blan ket on the bed In defendant's room. Dr. Levis informs you that the spots on the blan ket, oilcloth, and door-knobs were blood. No trace of blood was found near the hydrant or la defend ant's biBln. A stained towel and piece of linen were found In the slats of the screen In tbe yard. This Is In sutstance a description of the blood stains on and In the house. Certain articles of clothing have been produoed, and have been given in evidence. Detective Warnook says that he took the coat, vest, pantaloons, shirt, and boots from the defen dant, and that he found tbe cutis, collar, and sleeve buttons In tbe defendant's bedroom. The Commonwealth Is bound to satisfy you that these articles belong to tbe defendant, and were all taken trom him or from his room shortly after the occurrence, and that the stains examined by Dr. Levis were then on them. If you have no doubt as to theie matters, you must then inquire what these ttalts aret If, beyond all question, these artlolea belonged to the defendant, and bore the stains of blood when be was arrested that night, you must then consider what deduotion Is properly to be drawn therefrom. You are to remember here that if Hey are consistent with lnnooenoe they amount to nothing. To weigh against the de fendant they must point to guilt, and to It alone. Let us, then, address ourselves to this Impoitant question te what result do these stains conclusively lead our minds. They, like the body, cannot speak to us. Tbey belong io the olass called 'mute witnesses, but they have a voice. Examine them and say what Is their testl. mony. Uuard yourselves carefully against the conclusions to which the mind Is sometimes looau tlouily led by suoh appearances, and sec here, as elsewhere, tbat yon deolde this question solely in the light of your calm judgments and the prlnol. pics of the law. Ia answer to uesUoiu pat to Ce. fendant by Officer Howard the defendant said that - tne mooa came on bis white shirt by oarrylng the . old lady in from the yard.11 At another Ume, when Lieutenant Oonnelly questioned htm as to the blood on his shirt tbe defendant made no reply. Drtectlve Warnook says, "1 anked him how he got all tbat blood on the coat and vest. He said. ly carrying Mrs. Hill in out nt the yard ' He continues, "I asked the defendant how the blood came on his shirt. He said he didn't know 7, His explanation, therefore, of the pretence of these stains Is that he received them fa hamliinv the dead body. He has oalled the thyslolnl 1 have already named In support of this position 1 bey account for the presenoe of such stains by the carrying of the oorpse and the washing or the head But the Commonwealth's counsel contend that ' this defence eannot avail, beoauee, as they allege, the defendant's white muslin shirt and the cellar and cutis were not on his person when he earrled the body of Mrs, Hill from the yard to tbe kltohen settee, and that the artlolea were then up stairs In his bed-room and remained there until arter his arrest. This requires us to examine the evldenoe to as certain what clothes he wore at the particular time he lifted up the body and while he was bathing its head.- Sarah Campbell says he had on a short, dark ooat and pants. J. P. Montgomery, F.sq., states that he had not a good opportunity of obnervlng; that the defendant had on a dark colored ooat with large collar, but toned up. It Is Mr. Montgomery's Impression tbat the defendant had no collar on, and no white shirt was noticed by this witness. Mr. Doster, Mr. Lcldy, and Offloer Howard, speak of the coat; two of thorn sty It was buttoned up; all of tbem speak ot the undershirt, and of the absence of tLc white muslin shirt and collar. Mr. W. H. a. Morrell and Mr. Lord make the same statements. Mr. Doster says the undershirt looked white. Mr. Morrell calls It gray mixed. In confirmation of this, Offloer Howard says that when he told the defendant ' to put his oap on, as be was going to take him to the station-house, tbe defendant saH il he wanted to change his clothes, and to go upstairs." Tbe officer adds that when they went up stairs, the defendantpuf on the while shirt, a black cloth vest, and the same coat he had worn downstairs, it you believe this evldenoe you will piobably oonolude tbat the defendant had not on the white muslin shirt, collar, or cuffs while he was bathing the head of the body down stairs. If so, and the shirt collar and cuffs had been left up stairs when he oame down at Sarah Campbell's call, then It Is very dear that all supposition as to tbe sprinkling of those artloles In the act of carry ing In or bathing the body Is out of tbe oase. You will also remember upon this branoh of the case the evidence as to the eap worn by deceased and the petition of the spots on the defendant's gar ments. There wss, It seems, a woollen eap on Mrs. Hill's head. Detective Warnook says he did not sec her h sir loose on the Be t tee ; it appeared to be oonflned. The coat whloh was seen buttoned has, aooordlng to Dr. Levis, sprinkles of blood inside. It Is also desorlbed as having blood on tbe sleeve up to the shoulder, soaked and smeared places on the collar, side, and cuff. The stains on the vest, pantaloons, boots, and other articles have also been desorlbed to yen. It Is said tbat the shirt bosom Is sprinkled obliquely, from right to left, upward and outward: that the collar has a few minute sprinklings, and tbat the cufls have minute sprinkled spots. On behalf of the defendant, It has beea urged that small particles of blood oould have been sprinkled cn to the shirt from his hands and from the lappel of the coat. On this point, and the absenoe of any brain on the poker, Dr. Paine has been examined. Doctors Pancoast, Allen, and Morton have been called by the Ccmmonwoalth to rebut the evidence ol tbe defendant's experts as to tbe time required lor tbe coagulation of blood In different olroum Etances. Now, gentlemen, yon must consider all these va rious arguments an1 the evidence relied on in sup port of thetc respective theories. Weigh them care fully. Has the Commonwealth satisfied you that the stains on the shirt were reoeived In the verv aot of murder! Has th-j defendant, by argument, evi dence, or suggestion, created a reasonable doubt upon this point! The Common wealth has also relied upon the evi dence of MsSfiS. Doster, Howard, Morrell, and Montgomery, as to the defendant's aotlons. His etntinusree of the bhtalng alter he was told that Mrs. Hill was dead: his omissions to go Into the yatd or up stairs with those who were searching the premises; his failure to ask any questions as to the discoveries made by them, and his manner throughout have all been commented upon. The defendant's counsel have la like manner re lied upon certain expressions of distress and an guish, his requests tor medloal assistance, and other matters, as explaining all that has been alleged against him, and as aotually establishing innocence. Mr. Morrell says the defendant exolalmed 11 Oh, my Ood; my poor mother f" Mr. Koen testifies to a similar expression, and Officer Howard says he declared be was lnnooent. On the question of motive, you will remember that It Is alleged that tbe defendant's due bill tor 4M) was found In tho wardrobe of thedooeaeed; that his habits were extravagant and bis means limited. It Is also said that tbere had been 111 feeling be tween the deceased and the defendant because of the Introduction of the name of Mrs. Twltohell in the deed for the house. It Is charged that this was done la fraud of Mrs. Hill. It Is also s aid that she complained tbat the defendant had robbed her, and that this was communicated to the defendant. It is further stated that he spoke or her Insultingly. The ptlnclpal wltne&s on this brancbo f the oase is Mr. Joseph Gilbert. Mr. Henderson speaks ol his visit to Mrs. Hill, and tbat defendant ordered him to leave the houee. The tax reoelpt has also beon produced. It Is said tbat it bears the defendant's endorf ement to the effect that It was paid by him for Mary E. Hill. In answer to this It Is contended that the defend ant bad piecesslon ot considerable property. Mr. Long saw shingles at the defendant's place of business the Tuesday before the murder, and that the bundles were marked with the defendant's name. Mr. Daniels saw at the same place ten thousand shingles on the Thursday before the murder. They weuid average, he says, (30 a thousand. Mr. Hollhisbead counted at the same place fifty, nine thousand thiee hundred and twenty five first quality shingles and six thousand oommon suln- . ne lurmersays tuat tuere was inaoninery there worth about 6, 000. He told you, however, something about the ownership of the shingles, and he said the defendant owes him $130. Mr. McCully also spoke of tbe defendant's pro perty at the stable as worth $l,2uo, and netting 1 602. The defendant has further attacked the charac ter of Mr. Gilbert for truth and veracity. A num ber of witnesses have been examined both for and against Mr. Ullbert, and you must oonslder all that has been said on this point In determining the proper weight to be attached to his testimony. If you find that a witness Is unworthy of belief, you should not convict upon his testimony; bat before you disbelieve a man you must weigh the evldenoe for him as well as against him. In order to show that Mrs. Hill was not Injured by the Insertion of Mrs. Twltchell's name la the deed the defendant has examined a number of wit nesses to prove that Mrs. illtl spoke of the house and furniture as belonging to Mrs. Twitchell. El len Dolan, Thos. E. Carter, Mrs. Elsenhouer, and Sarah Bouvler have testified on this point. A number of bills have also been submitted to you. The Commonwealth contends that when the wit nesses say that Mrs. Hill declared the house and turnlture were Mrs. Twltohell's, they mean that Mrs. Hill said she would leave or would give all to ber. Some of tbe witnesses used these expressions on cross-examination. Mrs. TwItoheH's name is In the furniture bills. Mrs. Hill's name was on tbe bouse. . 1 have several times mentioned to you that dogs were kept In the house. The Commonwealth al leges that theBC animals were very watohlul, and that the two belonging to Mrs. Hill were not teen by any of the witnesses on tbe night of the murder. The defendant contends that tbe dogs were kept In the bed-rooms, at times did not bark at stran gers, and tbat they made no noise on tbe night In question until Mr. Long aotually entered the bed room where two of them then were. The defence also lely upon the absenoe of traces of blood In defendant's basin and tear the hydrant. 1 havealicady stated to you that Mr. Warnook testifies to these matters, and that he saw a man's stockings on tbe floor at the bead of the bed. He also speaks of the omission to examine tbe top of tbe fence to see II the dust had been removed. The defendant further relies upin the laot that Mrs. Hill had an laoome of 66,001) par year, whloh, upon her death, went to the heirs of 3lr. Hill. It Is also in proof for the defenoe that the noises made In the dicing-room oould not be heard In the bed. room with Its doors dosed Messrs. Dobbins. Zess. and Ksslerhavc been ex. mined on this point, and they say that Mr. Ben- uer was present wnen me experiments were muo. Yen aiso teard from Eliea Dolaa and Sarah Bouvler as to Mrs. Hill's habit of slttlog up late, and tbat deforciant and hit wife retired early. In addition to this, Sarah Buuvierspeaks of Mrs. Hill having money In her bosom, and of her being 011 good terms with the defendant. Both ol these allegations are denied by the Com mcuwealth. The defendant has also shown that the gas bills were very small; tbat the oess pool was searched at tbe Instance of the Commonwealth's otttoers,' and that no weapon or money were found therein., It Is lurtber In proof that on the night of the mur der tbe thermometer ranged irom ue to 42. Finally, the detendant has produoed a number of witnesses to establish his good character (or peoe and Integrity. They speak highly of him, and yon I Continue on tht Seventh Fagt.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers