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.