Commonwealth v. Danz
| Citation | 211 Pa. 607,60 A. 1070 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. DANZ. |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1905 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
211 Pa. 607
COMMONWEALTH
v.
DANZ.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
April 17, 1905.
Appeal from Court of Oyer and Terminer, Philadelphia County.
Catharine Danz was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
When Robert McKenty was on the stand he was asked this question: "Q. She made the remark you have testified to, and then
went on toward the cell? A. We went on to the cell. Q. Where did you go from that point? A. To the cellroom, and I brought Hossey out of the cell; and at that time Mr. Donaghy was in the cellroom, we were probably about as far from here to that railing from one another. Q. Hossey and the woman? A. Yes, sir; she throwing up her hands and saying: 'I don't know that colored man. I never saw that nigger.' I said, 'George, is that the butcher's wife, on Fourth street, that paid you the $51 for that powder?' and he said, 'Yes.' Judge Martin: Q. Who is George? A. Hossey. Mr. Bell: Q. Did she hear you say that? A. The probabilities are she did not. I cannot say whether she did or did not. I said it loud enough. That is not the one that Donaghy said he didn't hear. (Mr. Scott objects, and moves to strike the witness' answer out.) Judge Martin: The jury can pass on whether she heard it or not. (Exception for defendant.)"
Frederick Genth, a witness for the defendant, while under direct examination was asked these questions: "Q. And these are the two bottles which have been produced here in court and identified by Mr. Shrawder? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you do with them? A. I examined them for arsenic. Q. What did you find? A. I found arsenic. Mr. Bell: Confine it to the fluid used here. Mr. Scott: But Eckels testified it was not in either kind. The Court: My recollection of Mr. Myers' testimony is that he used the Royal embalming fluid. Mr. Scott: I will read from Mr. Eckels' testimony (page 35): 'Q. Does that embalming fluid, Primero, you are selling today, contain arsenic in sufficient quantities to be weighed? A. No, sir. Q. It would be impossible? A. Yes.' Mr. Scott: I propose to contradict him upon that, and show that we have examined this very Primero embalming fluid, and that it does contain arsenic in weighable quantities. (Objected to. Objection sustained, as the portion of testimony read from was cross-examination. Exception for defendant.)"
Verdict of guilty for murder of the first degree, upon which judgment sentence was passed.
Argued before MITCHELL, C. X, and BROWN, DEAN, FELL, MESTREZAT, POTTER, and ELKIN, JJ.
Henry J. Scott, for appellant. John C. Bell, Dist. Atty., and Owen J. Roberts, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
BROWN, J. By the act of February 15, 1870 (P. L. 15), it is made our duty to review both the law and the evidence in this case, and to determine whether the ingredients necessary to constitute murder of the first degree were proved to exist. The first assignment of error is based on their alleged absence. Whether they were proved to exist is to be determined by a review of the evidence produced by the commonwealth to sustain its grave accusation, for, if they are there found, we cannot disturb the verdict because it may be plausibly argued that the jury should not have believed the witnesses for the commonwealth, or that, in view of the evidence offered by the prisoner, she should have been acquitted. That a verdict might fairly have been a different one is no ground for judicial interference with the one rendered, if there was proper evidence to support it, and this is true whether such evidence be circumstantial or positive. Facts to be found from contradictory evidence are always for the jury, and never for the court. It is only when, from undisputed evidence, but one finding can follow, and a jury reaches a different one, that a court must interfere and avert injustice by setting the verdict aside.
William G. Danz died June 27, 1901. On March 12, 1903, his body was exhumed, and the coroner's physician made a post mortem examination. He testified to the condition of the organs at the time the body was exhumed, and delivered the heart, liver, kidney, stomach, intestines, brains, and part of the muscular tissue of the thigh to an expert chemist for examination. That expert testified that he had found arsenic and antimony in various organs of the body in weighable and appreciable quantities. The body had been embalmed, and, to repel any presumption that the arsenic found might have been injected into it by the embalmer, the chemist who manufactured the embalming fluid was called, and testified that it contained no more than a mere trace of arsenic, which was neither weighable nor appreciable. The two physicians who had attended Danz during the last four weeks of his life testified to his symptoms. Three most eminent members of the medical profession, called as experts, pronounced them to be those of arsenical poison, and testified that, from the evidence produced by the commonwealth, they were of opinion such poison had caused the death, probably accelerated by the use of antimony. The wife of the deceased had administered the antimony to him for the alleged purpose of curing him of the drinking habit. When the prisoner was asked to allow the body to be exhumed, she said, in consenting, that it would be found full of poison, because Dr. Eberhard, one of her husband's physicians, had told her so. When she made this statement nothing had been said by any one about poison, and it does not appear that the doctor had ever told her what she said. Hossey is a colored man, from whom, according to the commonwealth's theory, the poison was obtained. Her conduct when she confronted him at the city hall was a most important and significant circumstance. She became suddenly and greatly excited, and asked to be taken away from him, saying and repeating: "I do not know that colored man. I never seen that nigger. I never seen him. Take me
away from here." To this he replied: "What is the matter with you, woman? I am not giving you away." He was asked in her presence whether she was the butcher's wife who had paid him $51 for a powder, to which he replied, "Yes." Shortly afterwards she mentioned the colored man's name, though it had not been mentioned by any one before. Subsequently she admitted she knew him, and agreed with him in certain of his statements. She admitted that she had got a powder from him; that it was gray in color—something like slate-pencil dust. Finally, when taken to another room, she admitted that after her husband's death she had paid Hossey the $51 referred to by him, and at the time stated by him. When he was arrested there were found in his office a box of Rough on Rats, and a package wrapped up in a newspaper, tied with a string, and similar to the one the prisoner said she had got from him. It contained gray powder. A chemical analysis of the contents of this package, of one similar to it sold by Hossey to a man named Gavin, and of the Rough on Rats found in his possession at the same time, disclosed a large proportion of arsenic in each. A number of witnesses were called who had known Danz from 5 to 20 years, and, according to their testimony, he was not a man who drank to excess. There were frequent quarrels between him and his wife. He accused her of trying to poison him. She stated to some of the witnesses that she would be happier if he were dead. To one she repeatedly said she would like to get rid of him. To others she said he would not survive the month in which he died. To Mrs. Heinel she stated that she had put the powders Hossey had given her into her husband's coffee, and that the son of a bitch had discovered it and thrown it out, but she would catch him yet. To...
To continue reading
Request your trial