OCR Text |
Show SHE 18 NOT GUILTY The Jury Was Oat Only Thirty Minutes. TEE DEFENSE WAS ABLE And th Prssecution Fair and M.ot Thorough Mx. Van Patton and Her Friends Rejoice The Juror Do Not Even Suspicion. Her of Crime. The arguments in the Van Patton case closed at 4:05 yesterday afternoon and Judge Smith charged the jury. In his charge the judge said : There are two principal questions of fact for you to determine in this case. (1) Did Soren Nielsen die from the effect of poison? (2) Was the poison from which he died willfully and feloniously felon-iously administered to him by the defendant de-fendant with the specific intention of taking his life? In order to find the -defendant guilty, you muet answer both of these questions in the affirmative, affirma-tive, and beyond a reasonable doubt. All murder which is accomplished accomp-lished bv means of poison i3 murder in the first'degree. If vou find that Nielsen Niel-sen died from tne fleets of laudanum or rouzh on rats, or both,and that tese poioons have been willfully and felon-ouslv felon-ouslv administered to him by defend ant with an intention to take hi life, then tie defendant is guilty, although you are not certain which of the poisons killed him. If you can reasonably reason-ably reconcile all the circumstances proven with the innocence of the de fendant, it is your duty to do so and to acquit her, although you might believe upon the doctrine of chance or probabilities prob-abilities it is more likely that she is guilty than that she is not guilty. If upon the whole of the ey idence you believe that the defendant or some other person poisoned Soren Nielsen and killed him willfully and feloniously, and you entertain a reasonable doubt as to which of two persona did it, you must acquit the defenpant. But if she willfully asB;sted,Jaided or encouraged another person to do the act, then she is equally guilty as if she had done it herself. The jury retired and the vast throng of spectators who had listened so at tentively to the able arguments awaited in or near the building feeling confident confi-dent that before long the verdict would be declared. During this wait the crowd Indulged in favorable comnent, praise in fact, of the attorneys on both sides of the case for their fairness, enthusiasm and ability dis-plaved dis-plaved in the conduct of the case. Messrs. Houtz, Dusenberry and King worked faithfully, dilligently and with deep earnestness for the defense and without recompense or hope of reward in anyway. Attorney Attor-ney Houtz threw his whole soul into the case, and led out for the defense de-fense in the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution and in the direct examination of the witnesses for the defense, Judge Dusenberry closely following him reminding him occasionally of points and connecting links in tbe evidence. Mr. Iloutz's plea before tbe jury was indeed a Drilliant and logical effort on which he has received re-ceived many coupliments. He showed c'ea-ly that the doubt of Mrs Van Pat tun's guilt was so great as to almost positively establish her innocence, and claimed that complinz this doubt arising aris-ing from the eyidence of the prosecution prosecu-tion with the evidence for the defense, his client was so far from being proven guilty, which the law requires before conviction can be had, as to be actually proven inn 0 Jen t. Mr, King displayed , his wonderful ability as a lawyer and his masterly eloquence to very good advantage. ad-vantage. Mr. Thurman's work as well as that of his associate in the prosecution, prosecu-tion, Jacob Johnson, was characterized by its thoroughness and fairness. There was not one evidence during the whole trial of an attempt to in anyway any-way jeopardize any right of the defendant. de-fendant. The attorneys were firm and did their duty well and to the entire satisfaction of all. The throng of spectators were not wrong in their judgment. As expected by the majority, in about a half an hour the jury returned with a yerdict of not guilty. Upon hearing the verdict read there was much evident rejoicing on the par", of those interested in the defense. Mrs. Van Patton herself smiled pleasantly pleas-antly on all and seemed to be relieved that the long strain was over. Her conduct was such, however, as to indicate in-dicate that she had all along expected and felt confident that the yerdicf would be what it was. A talk with the jurors after they were discharged elicited the fact that the majority of them deep down in their hearts believe not only there is a reasonable doubt of her guilt but that Mrs. Van Patton i3 actually innocent, and in their minds she is absolutely tree from suspicion. They centered their minds on the evidence as it effected Mrs. Van Patton, as they were not trying Mrs. Nielsen, but they feel that she, too is innocent of crime. They entertain very grave doubts as to whether Nielsen died of poison other than the poison of a most unwholesome unwhole-some compound of whisky, beer, mush, milk, clabber, salmon and other stuff he put into bis stomach the night on which he was taken sics. There are some euepicious circumstances connected con-nected with tbe laudanum and the dy-ing dy-ing of the chickens which the jury could not reconcile only on the theory that perhapBBome ladanum was given innocently to ease the old man's pain and that the chickens died from eating eat-ing rough on rats or dead mice poisoned with rough on rats. |