Craven County NcArchives Court.....George Best, State V. 1892 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Connie Ardrey n/a December 25, 2011, 11:27 am Source: N C Reports Written: 1892 The State v. George Best Evidence - Expert - Poison - Trial - Verdict, how impeached - Jury, polling 1. Upon the trial of an indictment for homicide, charged to have been produced by poison, it was in evidence that the deceased exhibited, before and after death, symptoms of arsenical poison; that flour, bread and dough, from which she had eaten had been taken, on the day of her death, from her house and given to coroner who, with another physician - both being medical experts - made an analysis and testified that they discovered the presence of arsenic. The coroner testified that he carried the substance given him to his private office and put in the poison, but barely probable: Held, not error to admit the evidence of existence of arsenic, especially as the Court instructed the jury that before they could consider that fact they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the flour and dough analyzed were the same of which deceased ate. 2. When a motion for a new trial is based upon affidavits, the Supreme Court will not look into them; the Court below must find the facts and spread them upon the record. 3. It is not competent to impeach the verdict of a jury for misconduct by evidence proceeding from the members of the body. 4. Where several jurors made affidavit that they were induced to join in the verdict of guilty in the belief that the recommendation of mercy accompanying their verdict would prevent the death penalty, and the Court permitted the affidavit to be filed, but, in the exercise of discretion, declined to grant a new trial: Held, not to be error. 5. It is the privilege of one on trial for crime to have the jury polled when rendering the verdict; but it is not error to receive the verdict without polling unless the defendant requests it in apt time. Indictment for murder, tried at Spring Term, 1892, of Craven Superior Court, before Winston, J. There was but one exception to evidence. The testimony offered by the State (there was none on the part of the prisoner) tended to prove, by circumstantial evidence, that the deceased, who was the wife of the prisoner, came to her death from the effects of arsenical poison placed in the flour which was used by her in the preparation of dinner of herself and other members of her family; that the poison used was an article called "Rough on Rats," and was placed in said flour by the prisoner with felonious purpose. One Emperor Rouse testified that he went to the house of the prisoner the day after the death of the deceased, and there he found bread and flour; the flour had been mixed with water. Witness got it, put it in a paper sack and gave it to Dr. Primrose, the coroner, who came on Thursday, two days after the death of deceased, to hold an inquest. Witness found something soft in the sifter which looked like wheat bran, but was not. Witness gave it all (the bread, the dough and the soft stuff) to Dr. Primrose, the coroner, next day after he found it. Dr. Primrose, who was admitted to be an expert, testified, among other things not necessary to be stated in order to point the exception, that the bread, the dough and the flour were given him the same day he went up there by Emperor Rouse. Witness took the bread, put it in his hand satchel and carried it to his office, and then to the drugstore and examined and tested it; it was the same bread, dough and flour, and was in the same condition as when witness first got it. No change in it. "Objection by the defendant as to the things found in the bread, etc., and exception." The witness then testified that the bread contained arsenic, a poison that would produce death, but he could not say how much arsenic was in it; that the bowels and intestines of deceased were both inflamed; that indicated an irritant of some kind. Arsenic would produce such an effect; also a spot in the stomach that indicated deeper inflamation, indicated irritant poison of some kind. "Rough on Rats" is an arsenical poison. The witness testified at length on cross-examination as to the manner of his analysis of the bread and dough, and his finding arsenic therein, also in stomach; and of his application of his test to "Rough on Rats" with the same result as his test of the bread and dough. He testified that the bread and dough were kept in his private office; that it was possible for some one to have gone into his office and put arsenic in the bread, but it is barely probable. Witness testified further, that he made a second test of the bread and dough just before the term of the Court, "that the second test produced better results than the first - he accounted for this because the bread and dough had been in solution since the first test, and the arsenic had more time to dissolve." Dr. Francis Duffy, a witness for the State, testified after he was admitted to be an expert that he examined the bread and dough in Dr. Primrose's possession; he explained the tests applied by him; that the test made in February did not produce results fully satisfactory, "but in our last tests they were decidedly plainer; this came about because of the insolubility of the arsenic in the water, and the second time we got more arsenic in a given quantity of water." The only exception to the admission or rejection of evidence was that the Court admitted the testimony of the medical experts as to the poison found in the bread and dough. It was a case of circumstantial evidence, and this circumstance of the bread and dough being found at the house where the prisoner and deceased had lived, on the day after the alleged homicide, the application of the tests by experts and the finding of the poison, was relied upon by the State as one of material facts necessary to be proved in its evidence. The Attorney General for the State Messrs. Caho & Lee (by brief) for defendant NC Supreme Court Justice MacRae, J. - Appreciating the gravity of the consequences of our conclusions in this matter, we have given it the most serious consideration, and having carefully examined the record, we are constrained to say there is no error. The judgment must be Affirmed (see court case for judge's full findings) Additional Comments: In the NC Supreme Court September Term 1892 File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/craven/court/georgebe2169gwl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/ File size: 6.8 Kb