has allowed the publication of an extract from it, which I insert
here as the words of one of our most eminent criminal jurists, He
says: "I had made up my mind, when Dr. Williams's first testimony
was concluded, that the case would fail. When Professor Aiken's
examination was concluded it was beyond recovery. All efforts to
secure a conviction after that were a waste of time and money. The
case could have been safely for the defendant given to the jury on the
testimony of the prosecution alone. If I had been sitting as a judge
in the case, I would have instructed the jury at the close of the case
for the State, if there had been no other testimony, that the evidence
would not warrant a conviction. And I would have set aside the verdict
if the jury had found the defendant guilty. I do not know the lady
who was so wantonly charged with this crime, and I do not know of any
case in the annals of criminal jurisprudence which, from the evidence
submitted in the case, had so baseless a foundation for so grave a
charge."]

[Footnote 19: It is proper to state that Miss Wharton, in his
presence, partook of the same claret, but perceived nothing peculiar
either in its taste, as she told him at the time, or in its effects
upon her afterward. According to Miss Wharton's testimony, Mrs.
Wharton actually drank the claret left in the glass of Mr. Van Ness
directly after he left the room.]

[Footnote 20: This bottle was found in the house after the arrest of
Mrs. Wharton, with compound tincture of gentian in it.

I have outlined the circumstances as Mr. Van Ness told them. A
peculiarity of this trial was the direct contradiction of witnesses.
Mr. Van Ness for a long time refused to entertain the idea that Mrs.