Neither H. nor his father are shown to have possessed any strych- Y. might have died by colic, from which he had often suffered. Y. might have died of ptomaine poisoning in supper-food. Y. might have died from poison put in his supper-food by third person; the only third person having access being Sallie his wife. Sallie had desire for Y.'s death. Her illicit relation with Henry Carroll points to 34. Anon. witnesses to this relation with H. C. Sallie possessed means of strychnine poisoning; see 38. Sallie had received strychnine from H. C. three weeks before, with Witnesses to 39. Sallie's failure to use it during those three weeks' opportunity indicates abandonment of her design. Secrecy of H.'s mode of giving drink indicated consciousness of something wrong. Same witnesses as 26-29. This perhaps due to desire not to waste whisky on Sallie. Transaction was not really secret, for he knew Sallie and others His confession that his father had told him the whisky would fix Anon. witnesses to this confession. H.'s second statement, retracting on that point, makes it doubtful whether he knew. Anon. witnesses to this second statement. Lack of any desire in H. to kill Y. H. was even unacquainted with Y. up to this time. Anon. witnesses to 49. H. himself drank of whisky; hence did not know of strychnine in it. Anon. witnesses to 52. Y. might have drunk two thirds of the bottle. H. might have been deterred, by father's directions, from drinking any. 377. COMMONWEALTH v. UMILIAN. CIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Indictment for murder, returned June 12, 1900. At the trial in the Superior Court, before SHERMAN and STEVENS, JJ., the defendant at the close of the evidence asked the judges to rule and instruct the jury: first, that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding a verdict of guilty; and, second, that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding a verdict of guilty in the first degree. The judges declined to give either of these rulings. The jury found a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree; and the defendant alleged exceptions. J. B. O'Donnell, for the defendant. J. C. Hammond, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. KNOWLTON, J. The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and the only question before us is whether there was any evidence to warrant the verdict. He and Casimir Jedrusik were working together as farm laborers for one Keith in Granby. On Sunday, December 31, 1899, Jedrusik disappeared, and was never afterwards seen alive. On April 10, 1900, his headless, mutilated body was found inclosed in a bran sack in an unused well between four hundred and five hundred feet from Keith's horse barn. His clothing was found inclosed in another sack in the same well. His skull was afterwards found buried in the cellar of the horse barn. The sacks were similar to those which Keith had in the horse barn. The stone, which was inclosed in the sack of clothing, exactly fitted a vacant place in a stone wall about in line between the old well and the north door of the horse barn. On the day of the disappearance there was no snow on the ground, and the surface of the ground was entirely frozen. In the cellar of the horse barn pigs were kept, and there was soft mud 177 Mass. 582.) (1901. there. The clothing which was exhibited to the jury had mud upon it which the Commonwealth contended on the evidence was like that in the cellar. Mr. and Mrs. Keith drove away to church on December 31st, leaving the defendant and Jedrusik about the barn. The defendant's wife was in the house, where she was employed as a housemaid, and there was evidence tending to show that the only other person who came there during that day was a young woman who came to visit her. The defendant was outside of the house, about the premises, for some hours after Mr. and Mrs. Keith went to church, and when he came in he said that Jedrusik had gone to Granby. There were wounds on the head of Jedrusik, which the Commonwealth contended were made by a corn cutter that was in the horse barn, and was exhibited to the jury. The evidence tended to show that the defendant had ample opportunity to commit the murder, and that no other person had an opportunity to do it without discovery. On November 18th the defendant went to Chicopee to the house of a Polish priest, to have the ceremony of marriage performed between him and a young woman who had been living as a maid at Keith's house, and he found that the priest had received a letter in a name which proved to be fictitious, charging him with having a wife and children in the old country, and with receiving letters from his wife asking for money for the support of herself and her children. The priest refused to marry him, and sent a trusted person with him to investigate. It turned out that Jedrusik wrote the letter, and that its contents did not appear to be true. The defendant was then married by the priest, and the evidence tended to show that he was very angry with Jedrusik, and that he made strong threats of vengeance against him. There was evidence from several witnesses that at different times between the defendant's marriage and Jedrusik's disappearance, the defendant manifested deeply hostile feelings towards him, and made threats against him. On the morning of December 31st there was a new manifestation of this feeling in charges made to Mr. Keith that Jedrusik had stolen a plane and had stolen butter. There was evidence that, between the time of the disappearance and the discovery of the body, the defendant was seen to take up one of the planks covering the unused well, and also that when he was told in the daytime that Keith and one Olds had gone out of the house with a lantern, he said he "knew what they were going to do. Mr. Olds wants to buy the pump in the old well." There was evidence that nothing had ever been said by Olds about buying the pump. Immediately after being told this the defendant went into the horse barn, and was seen looking out of a window from which the well could be seen. When others went to the well after the body was found, he did not go. There was also evidence that about the middle of January he gave away Jedrusik's rubber boots, and said that he did not think Jedrusik would come back. There were many other things in his language and conduct after Jedrusik's disappearance which the Commonwealth relied or as tending to show guilty knowledge, and much of his testimony in explanation of facts was in direct contradiction of other witnesses. Without going more at length into the evidence, which was voluminous, we are of opinion that it would have been error to take the case from the jury. So far as we can judge from the bill of exceptions the evidence well warranted the verdict. Exceptions overruled. 378. HATCHETT v. COMMONWEALTH. APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 76 Va. 1026.). LEWIS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff in error was indicted in the county court of Brunswick county for the murder of Moses Young, by administering to the said Young strychnine poison in whisky.. The facts proved, as certified in the record, are substantially these: That on the night of the 17th day of December, 1880, Moses Young died at his house in Brunswick county, and under such circumstances as created suspicions that he had been poisoned. He was an old man, 65 years of age, and was subject to the colic, and a short time previous to his death had been hurt in his side by a cart. In the afternoon of that day the father of Oliver Hatchett, the prisoner, gave him a small bottle of whisky, with instructions to take it to Moses Young; at the same time telling him not to drink it himself. The deceased lived about three miles from the prisoner's father, to whose house the prisoner at once proceeded. It seems that he was not acquainted with the deceased; or, if so, very slightly, and that he succeeded in finding the house only by inquiry of one of the neighbors. Soon after his arrival at the house of the deceased, he took supper with him, and a few minutes thereafter requested the deceased to go with him into the yard, and point out the path to him it then being dark. After getting into the yard, the prisoner produced the bottle and invited the deceased to drink - telling him that it was a little whisky his father had sent him. The deceased drank and returned the bottle to the prisoner, who at once started on his return home. The deceased then returned into the house. In a short while thereafter he complained of a pain in his side, began to grow worse, and told his wife that the man (meaning the prisoner) had (1882. COURT OF tricked him in a drink of whisky. He then got up, but fell immediately to the floor. Osborne and Charlotte Northington, two near neighbors, were then called in by his wife; and these three, whom the record describes as ignorant negroes, were the only persons present with the deceased until his death, which occurred about three hours after he drank of the whisky from the bottle handed him by the prisoner. They described his symptoms as follows: The old man had the jerks, complained of great pain, and every now and then would draw up his arms and legs and complained of being cramped; that he put his finger in his mouth to make him vomit, and his teeth clinched on it so that one of his teeth was pulled out in getting out his finger. They also testified that his dying declaration was that the man had killed him in a drink of whisky. From the symptoms as thus described, two physicians, who were examined as witnesses in the case, testified that as far as they could judge from the statements of the ignorant witnesses, they would suppose that Moses Young died from strychnine poison. No post-mortem examination of the deceased's body was made or attempted; nor was any analysis made of the contents of the bottle, which was returned about one-third full by the prisoner to his father, and was afterwards found. After the arrest of the prisoner, and while under guard, he stated to the guard in charge of him that he would not be punished about the matter; that he intended to tell all about it; that his father, Littleton Hatchett, gave him that mess and told him he would give him something, to carry it and give it to Moses Young, and that it would fix him. He further stated that he went to Moses Young's house, called him out and gave him a drink, and returned the bottle and put it where his father had directed him to put it. The next day he made a statement on oath before the coroner's jury, and when asked by the foreman whether he was prepared, upon reflection, to say that what he had stated on the previous day was not true, he answered: "I am prepared to say that a part of what I said yesterday was true." He then made a statement in which he said that he carried the whisky to the deceased by direction of his father, who told him not to drink of it; that he went to the house of the deceased and gave him a drink, and returned the bottle as directed by his father. But he did not state that his father told him that the whisky would "fix" the deceased, or that he (the prisoner) knew that it contained poison or other dangerous thing. It was also proved that Henry Carroll, who was jointly indicted with the prisoner, gave to Sallie Young, wife of the deceased, about three weeks before his death, something in a bottle which he said was strychnine, and which he told her to put in the coffee or food of the deceased; and that Osborne and Charlotte Northington knew of the fact, but did not communicate it to the deceased. It was also proved that Henry Carroll was the para mour of Sallie Young, which fact was also known to Osborne and Charlotte Northington. Such are the facts upon which the plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced to death. Now, under the allegations in the indictment, it was incumbent upon the prosecution, to entitle the Commonwealth to a verdict, to establish clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt these three essential propositions: (1) That the deceased came to his death by poison. That the poison was administered by the prisoner. (3) That he administered it knowingly and feloniously. These propositions, we (2) think, are not established by the evidence in this case. In the first place, there is no sufficient proof that the deceased died from the effects of poison at all. From the symptoms, as described by ignorant witnesses, one of whom at least was a party to the conspiracy to poison the deceased, and who had been supplied with the means to do so (a fact known to the others), the most that the medical men who were examined in the case could say was that they supposed he died from strychnine poison. Strange to say, there was no postmortem examination of the body of the deceased, nor was there any analysis made of the contents of the bottle from which he drank at the invitation of the prisoner, and which was returned by the latter to his father and afterwards found — all of which, presumably, might easily have been done, and in a case of so serious and striking a character as this ought to have been done. . . . Great strictness should be observed, and the clearest proof of the crime required, to safely warrant the conviction of the accused and the infliction of capital punishment. Such proof is wanting in this case to establish the death of the deceased by the means alleged in the indict ment. Equally insufficient are the facts proved to satisfactorily show that if in fact the deceased died from the effects of poison, it was administered by the prisoner; and if administered by him, that it was done knowingly and feloniously. It is not shown that if the whisky he conveyed to the deceased contained poison, he knew or had reason to know the fact. It is almost incredible that a rational being, in the absence of provocation of any sort, or the influence of some strong and controlling motive, would deliberately take the life of an unoffending fellow man. Yet in this case no provocation or motive whatever on the part of either the prisoner or |