The trial of Mrs. Catherine Zell, for the poisoning of Mrs. Kiehl, an old lady 81 years of age, residing near the fair grounds, has occupied the court since Wednesday the 14th. The names of the jurors were given in our last. This case has elicited an interest almost equal to the famous Schoeppe case. The evidence produced on the trial is very voluminous, too much to be given in a single issue of the paper. We are, however, enabled, through the courtesy of the court, to give to our readers the very lucid, condensed, yet comprehensive resume of the evidence as given by Judge Herman, in his charge to the jury. This, we feel sure, will prove more satisfactory than the publication of the evidence entire. The case was submitted to the jury on Tuesday afternoon, at about 2:30 o'clock. The jury remained out until Wednesday morning, at the opening of the court, when they filed into the court room, and, after being polled, each one replied, "GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE." A motion for a new trial was made.

Gentlemen of the Jury:

    The prisoner at the bar stands charged before your with the crime of murder. The bill of indictment charges her with having, by means of poison, killed and murdered Mrs. Mary Kiehl.
    Murder, as defined at common law, is where a person of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the peace of the commonwealth, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The distinguishing criterion of murder is malice aforethought. But it is not malice in its ordinary understanding alone--a particular ill-will, a spite, or a grudge. Malice is a legal term implying much more. It comprehends not only a particular ill will, but every case where there is a wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty, although a particular person may not be intended to be injured. Murder therefore at common law embraces cases where no intent to kill existed, but where the state or frame of mind termed malice, in its legal sense prevailed.
    In Pennsylvania, the legislature considering that there is a manifest difference in the degree of guilt, where a deliberate intention to kill exists, and where none appears, distinguished murder into two parts--murder of the first degree, and, murder of the second degree,--and provided that the jury, before whom any person indicted for murder should be tried, shall, if they find him guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder of the first degree or murder of the second degree. By the act of 31st March, 1860, it is declared that "All murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree; and the jury before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, if they find such person guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder of the first or second degree."
    The kind of murder we have to deal with in this case is that described as "perpetrated by means of poison." A murder perpetrated by means of poison is declared by the law to be murder of the first degree, but the same law makes it the duty of the jury to ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder of the first or second degree. A murder perpetrated with the intention to kill is murder of the first degree. All murder, not of the first degree, is necessarily of the second degree, and includes all unlawful killing under circumstances of depravity of heart and a disposition of mind regardless of social duty, but where no intention to kill exists or can be reasonably and fully inferred.
    Manslaughter is defined to be the unlawful killing of another without malice express or implied, which may be voluntary, in a sudden heat, or involuntary, but in the commission of an unlawful act. Manslaughter is never attended by legal malice or depravity of heart--that condition or frame of mind exhibiting wickedness of disposition, recklessness of consequences or cruelty. Being sometimes a wilful act (as the term voluntary denotes), it is necessary that the circumstances should take away every evidence of cool depravity of heart or wanton cruelty.
    The burden of proof necessary to constitute murder of the first degree lies on the commonwealth. But the proof need not be express or positive. It may be inferred from the circumstances. If, from all the facts attending the killing, the jury can fully, reasonably, and satisfactorily infer the existence of the intention to kill, and the malice of heart with which it was done, they will be warranted in doing so. As a general rule, all homicide is presumed to be malicious; that is, murder of some degree until the contrary appears in evidence. Therefore, the burden of reducing the crime from murder to manslaughter, where it is proved that the prisoner committed the deed, lies on him. He must show all the circumstances of alleviation, or, excuse upon which he relies to reduce his offence from murder to a milder kind of homicide, unless, indeed, where the facts already in evidence show it. But though the homicide, without the circumstances of alleviation or excuse, is presumed to be murder, it is not presumed to be murder of the first degree. The presumption against him rises no higher than murder of the second degree, until it is shown by the commonwealth to be murder of the first degree. It therefore lies on the commonwealth to satisfy the jury of those facts and circumstances which indicate the deliberate intention to kill, and the cool depravity of heart and conscious purpose, which constitute, as I have already stated, murder of the first degree.
    I do not consider that the evidence in this case would satisfy you in convicting the prisoner of manslaughter. If the prisoner wilfully administered the poison to Mrs. Mary Kiehl, the dec'd, with the intention to kill her and her death resulted therefrom, then the prisoner is guilty of the crime of murder of the first degree. On the contrary, if no poison was administered to her by the prisoner, or if it was given through accident or mistake, or if the deceased did not die from the effects of poison, then the prisoner is not guilty of any crime.
    From the evidence on part of commonwealth, it appears that Mrs. Mary Kiehl, an aged widow lady, who resided out near the fairgrounds, in this borough, died on the night of Friday, the 30th of last May (1879). At the time of her death she was 81 years old. She was buried on Sunday afternoon, the 1st of June. Some suspicions having been aroused as to the cause of her death, the coroner, on the 6th of June had her body exhumed and held an inquest upon it. At the inquest Dr. Kieffer was called upon to make a post mortem examination of the body, which he did. Dr. Kieffer has been examined as a witness before you, and has detailed, in your hearing, the manner in which this post-mortem examination was made, and has given, in minute detail, a description of the post-mortem appearances of the body, as he found them. He says that on account of the condition in which he found the stomach and bowels, the gall-bladder, the condition of the pericardium, the cavity of the pericardium and the cavity of the chest, he could not but feel that they were unnatural and could not have been caused by any disease of which he had any knowledge, and were therefore, in his judgment, the result of violence,--that the subject had certainly taken, he thought, poison in some form, that his own impression was, that it was some inorganic poison. He also says that he tied the stomach at both ends so as to preserve its contents and removed it from the body, and in like manner removed two sections of the intestines, one about two yards from the stomach and one about six or eight feet lower down, of about nine inches each, and, also, a section about midway down the colon, about nine inches long; that he also removed three sections from the solider portion of the liver, the three sections taken constituting about one-fifth part of the entire organ; that the stomach and portions of the intestines which he had removed, he placed into a clean jar by themselves, and the three sections of the liver into another clean jar by themselves. These jars with their contents the coroner, (David Smith, esq.) says he subsequently placed in the hands of W. F. Horn, a druggist and analytical chemist, for the purpose of having a chemical analysis made of the contents.
    Mr. Horn says he made a chemical analysis of the contents of the two jars given to him by the coroner, and found as a result of his analysis that they contained arsenic; that in making his analysis he used the Marsh test with its modifications, Reinsch's test, the sulphate of copper test, Bettendorf's test, the sulphuretted hydrogen test, and the reduction test, and also numerous confirmatory tests, and as a result of these tests obtained from the contents undoubted evidences of arsenic.
    Mrs. Rebecca Reed, who resides in North Middleton township, testifies that on Tuesday evening, the 27th May, 1879, she came in to see Mrs. Kiehl to cure her of the wild-fire; that Mrs. Kiehl complained of not being so well, saying she had fallen down the cellar stairs and hurt herself; that she (Mrs. Reed) remained a short time after giving her a cure for the wild-fire, then came in to attend the evening market, and after market returned to Mrs. Kiehl's house; that when, returning, she came near to the house she met Mrs. Zell, the prisoner, coming away from the house, with a little tin cup in her hand, and that Mrs. Zell said she had just been to(?) Mrs. Kiehl's and had taken her some beef and coffee and crackers, and that she (Mrs. Zell) would go along back and show her how she had cleaned Mrs. Kiehl's house; that they went back together, then, and Mrs. Zell told her how she had cleaned the house and showed her the front rooms, that then both came out into the dining room and sat down with Mrs. Kiehl, and that after some conversation about Wynkoop, Mrs. Zell went home. Mrs. Reed says she staid [sic] all night with Mrs. Kiehl, and on the next morning (Wednesday, the 28th May) at 4 o'clock, came in to attend the morning market, and after market returned again to Mrs. Kiehl's house between 8 and nine o'clock; that when she got back to the house a pot of coffee, already made, was standing on the stove and breakfast was partially prepared; that at Mrs. Kiehl's request she completed the preparation of the breakfast and both sat down to eat it; that after drinking of the coffee, both got very sick and vomited violently. Then the witness goes on to say: "She (Mrs. Kiehl) said she felt dreadful. While we were throwing up she said she believed we were poisoned. I asked her who she thought could do such a thing as that. She didn't say; just afterwards threw up again. I said I was so sick I believed I would lie down on the floor of the room. She said I should go up stairs. When I got up stairs I fell on the floor; all appeared black before my eyes. I felt sick. I said I wished I had a doctor. She said we would get better again. She laid down, then sat up on the floor and laid on the chair. Then I went down and she went down too. I said then that I would go home. I was to sweep and black the stove and that, I said, I was not able to do. I started home then and she said, when I left, if she gets such another good coffee and gets sick, she would let me know, and come in again and see what was in it that made her so sick. I started for home then, and she was sitting on the chair. She was looking at some seeds and I went out of the gate. Then she came to the door and stood under the door and said good-by. * * * I started home then, was very sick going home, fell down a couple of times, with weakness, I felt so bad." On Friday night, the 30th of May, Mrs. Kiehl died, about half-past nine o'clock. Mrs. Reed further testifies that the next time she saw Mrs. Zell was on Tuesday evening after Mrs. Kiehl's death; that she then told Mrs. Zell that she was shocked to hear that Mrs. Kiehl was dead; that Mrs. Kiehl had asked her to come in if she got worse, and that she and Mrs. Kiehl had both been sick of that "good coffee" that she (Mrs. Zell) had made; that Mrs. Zell then said she didn't know Mrs. Kiehl had thrown up so, but thought that only she (Mrs. Reed) had thrown up; that Mrs. Zell admitted that she had made the coffee and said she had taken home, in the evening, what remained of it, and used it in the morning and it didn't make them (the Zells) sick; that Mrs. Zell also told her that Mrs. Kiehl had thrown up so bad on Thursday that she did not know what to do; and gave her salts to stop the throwing up, and that the salts stopped it; that she (Mrs. Zell) waited on her (Mrs. Kiehl); that then she (Mrs. Reed) asked Mrs. Zell why she did not send for a doctor and Mrs. Zell replied that Mrs. Kiehl said, God Almighty was her doctor, and she didn't want any.
    It seems that the house Mrs. Kiehl resided in was closed up after her death and remained unoccupied for some time. Joseph Kutz, her son-in-law first having the keys, and Squire Wynkoop afterwards coming into possession. Fred'k Hays testifies that he went to the house on the 28th of July, after her death, and got from her kitchen two tin coffee pots which he took directly to W. F. Horn, the chemist, and gave to him, and it appears by the testimony of other witnesses that, after Wynkoop got possession, a package labelled--arsenic--poison--was taken from a band-box found under the bed in the up-stairs front room, by Mrs. Wynkoop, and that this was subsequently placed in the hands of W. F. Horn. Mr. Horn testifies that he made a chemical analysis of a portion of the grounds and matter which he found in these coffee-pots and discovered that both contained arsenic, and that he also analyzed a portion of the substance contained in the package labelled--arsenic--poison--and believes it to be arsenic. Mrs. Annie Minnich testifies that on the Wednesday morning before Mrs. Kiehl's death, between 7 and 8 o'clock, as near as she can remember, that she saw Mrs. Zell with a bowl and plate going from her own house in the direction of Mrs. Kiehl's house, and that Mrs. Zell said she was taking Mrs. Kiehl some coffee and something to eat. And Levi Barrick, another witness, testifies that between 7 and 8 o'clock, on the Wednesday morning before Mrs. Kiehl died, he came to the house with a load of wood to sell, and that Mrs. Zell was there when he came and told him Mrs. Kiehl had hurt herself pretty bad, that she had fallen down stairs, that Mrs. Zell at Mrs. Kiehl's request came out and looked at the wood and then reported to Mrs. Kiehl, and that then Mrs. Kiehl bought the wood and he unloaded it. Now S. M. Leidich, esq., another witness, testifies that he was present at the coroner's inquest and heard Mrs. Zell examined as a witness before the inquest, and that she said, then, that she had not been at Mrs. Kiehl's house, at all, on the Wednesday before her death, but that she had been there on Thursday and took her some sage tea and toast, and that all Mrs. Kiehl got on Thursday she herself gave to her.
    As to the finding of the package, labelled--arsenic--poison--Benjamin Long testifies, that, sometime after Mrs. Kiehl's death, and after Wynkoop got possession of the house, he (the witness) went to the house and that Mrs. Zell and Mrs. Wynkoop were there, that Mrs. Wynkoop found the package in a band-box under the bed in the front room--in a band-box containing "notions and scraps,"--that Mrs. Wynkoop handed it to Mrs. Zell who looked at it and then handed it to the witness, and that, after Squire Wynkoop came this package was given to him. According to the testimony of Squire Wynkoop this same package was subsequently given to Mr. Horn. But Ella Kutz, Mrs. Anna Kutz, Mrs. Joseph Kutz, and George Kutz, testify to a careful examination having been made of a band-box under this bed in the front room, at the time Mrs. Kiehl was lying a corpse in the house, and that there was nothing in the box but ribbons and some loose paper, and that they saw nothing that looked like this package.
    Evidence has also been produced for the purpose of showing that the prisoner had the opportunity of administering poison to the deceased, that she was the person who attended and waited on the deceased during Thursday and Friday and up until the time of her death on Friday night, that no physician was called in, nor her near relatives notified of her sickness, and also that on the Saturday previous she was in to market and in her usual health.
    The commonwealth's counsel contend that the evidence sufficiently proves that the death of Mrs. Kiehl was caused by arsenical poisoning, and that the prisoner, willfully and with intention to kill her, administered to her the poison which caused her death.
    On behalf of the prisoner, it is contended, 1, That the evidence does not sufficiently prove that the death of the deceased was caused by poison. 2, That if the death of the deceased was caused by poison, that she took the poison of her own volition and not through the criminal act of another--in other words that it was an act of suicide. And 3, That, if the death of the deceased was caused by poison wilfully administered by another with the intention of killing her, the prisoner is not the guilty person, and that the evidence does not justify her conviction.
    The chemical analysis, made by Mr. Horn, is attacked on the ground that it was not made with sufficient care and accuracy to justify the conclusion that there was any arsenic, at all, in the substances submitted to him for analysis, and Dr. Himes and Dr. Headden, both analytical chemists, have been called as experts, and they say that the statement, made by Mr. Horn, as to the manner in which he purified his reagents used in his analysis, does not show that they were so purified as to preclude the possibility of the arsenic, which he discovered, being produced from the reagents themselves, that from his statement they are not satisfied that his reagents were free from arsenic, and that, therefore, they doubt the correctness of the conclusions at which he has arrived, and cannot say that the result of his analysis shows with sufficient certainty that there was arsenic in the substances analyzed. You will remember the testimony of these gentlemen and in considering it you will remember also the testimony of Mr. Horn. Mr. Horn testifies, most unequivocally, that he purified and tested the purity of his reagents with the greatest care and satisfied himself that they were absolutely free from arsenic.
    In support of the theory that, if Mrs. Kiehl died from the effects of poison, that she poisoned herself of her own volition and not through the criminal act of another--that it was an act of suicide. Several witnesses have been called. Wm. Sheaffer testifies that in the later part of 1875, Mrs. Kiehl came to live with his daughter, lived with her for some three months, that during that time she seemed to be in great trouble and would sometimes sit down and cry, and once said that no one should wonder at it if she put herself out of the way. Sarah Nickey testifies that during last winter and spring she met Mrs. Kiehl at Mrs. Zell's house often, and conversed with her, that she seemed to be in trouble all the time, and frequently said that if things didn't go better she would put herself out of the way, and that Mrs. Zell said to her she shouldn't talk so. Joseph Ebright testifies that three or four weeks before Mrs. Kiehl died he was talking her in her garden, and that she said it would be no wonder if she would destroy her life, that she had such trouble.
    But, again the prisoner's counsel contend, that if indeed it be true that the death of Mrs. Kiehl was caused by arsenic, wilfully administered to her by some person with the intention to kill, that the prisoner is not the guilty person who thus administered the fatal poison, that she had no apparent motive to take the life of Mrs. Kiehl, that Mrs. Kiehl was her friend, and that her presence at her house during the last days of her life, was not for the purpose of taking her life, but to minister to her wants, as an act of neighborly kindness.
    An effort has been made to break down the testimony of Mrs. Rebecca Reed one of the principal witnesses on part of the commonwealth by the introduction of evidence impeaching her character for truth and veracity, and evidence to show that she made other statements inconsistent with the truth of what she has testified to on the witness stand, and also to contradict her testimony. Abraham Nisley and Franklin Wolf testify that on the 28th of last May, (the Wednesday preceding Mrs. Kiehl's death, when she says she and Mrs. Kiehl got so sick from drinking the coffee) they were at work by the road-side out in North Middleton and, that Mrs. Reed came along on her way home, and that in answer to a remark made to her by Mr. Nisley, that she was late from market, she gave as a reason for being late, that she was in cleaning Mrs. Kiehl's house, and Franklin Wolf says that about three months afterwards he went down to her house for a set of harness and she asked him what it was she had said to him and Mr. Nisley about being in to Mrs. Kiehl,--that he replied that she had said she was in cleaning Mrs. Kiehl's house, that she then replied that she had not said that but that she said she was to stay to clean and black the stove, but was sick and couldn't. Mrs. Catherine Biehls testifies that on the Wednesday Mrs. Reed was at Mrs. Kiehl's house she heard from her own house which adjoins, a rubbing on the stove as though some one were blacking it. But, in rebuttal, Mrs. Anna Kutz, Ella Kutz, George Kutz and Mrs. Joseph Kutz all testify that on the day of the funeral of Mrs. Kiehl, the kitchen stove was red on the top and dusty and dirty on the sides and looked as though it had not been blackened for a long time.
    The testimony of Susan Hunter, Israel Nickey, Sarah Nickey and others is relied on to show that the prisoner was not and could not have been [at] Mrs. Kiehl's house on the Wednesday before her death.
    Mrs. Catherine Biehls testifies that she saw Mrs. Kiehl on Thursday morning before her death in her kitchen getting her breakfast, and sitting down to the table eating her breakfast about 8 o'clock, and that on Friday, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, she heard Mrs. Kiehl groaning, and that she went down for Mrs. Zell and Mrs. Zell came up to her house, that in the evening she went in to see Mrs. Kiehl and helped Mrs. Zell to lift her up, and that she was then dying. The testimony of Mrs. Hunter, Joseph Ebright, Catharine Biehls, Mrs. Charlotte Fought and others is relied upon to show that no wood was brought to Mrs. Kiehl's house on the Wednesday before her death, as testified to by Levi Barrick, but it must be remembered that these witnesses say that they did not see any wood brought there or heard any thrown off at her door, whilst Levi Barrick most positively says that he did bring it there on that day. Mrs. Hunter, however, says that she saw Levi Barrick bring the load of wood on the Wednesday of the week prior to the week that Mrs. Kiehl took sick. You will remember that Levi Barrick is the man who says that he brought a load of wood to Mrs. Kiehl's house on the Wednesday preceding her death, and that Mrs. Zell was at the house then.
    Nancy Campbell and Mrs. Hunter, testify that between Mrs. Kiehl and Mrs. Zell there existed the most friendly relations. Mrs. Campbell says Mrs. Kiehl visited Mrs. Zell frequently, visited no one else, and Mrs. Hunter says Mrs. Kiehl came after Mrs. Zell several times and said she wanted her to come and work for her, sometimes Mrs. Kiehl would come every day to see Mrs. Zell, that Mrs. Zell was very kind to her, pumped her water and carried it home for her.
    Mrs. Amanda Wynkoop testifies that she found the package labelled--arsenic--poison--in a band-box, up stairs under the bed in the front room, that there were patches and scraps of dresses in the box and ribbons--that Mrs. Zell was with her when she found it, and that it had the scribe written on it which is now on it. In reference to this testimony, Mrs. Anna Kutz and Ella Kutz in rebuttal testify that when they examined the band-box on the day of the funeral these scraps and patches were wrapped together in little bundles, each bundle of a kind or color and were in a basket under the bed, and not in that band-box.
    Nancy Campbell testifies that she heard Mrs. Minnich and Mrs. Worley tell Mr. Shearer that they didn't see Mrs. Zell going to the house of Mrs. Kiehl as they have testified. You will remember, that Mrs. Minnich is the witness who says she saw Mrs. Zell on Wednesday morning before Mrs. Kiehl's death, going towards Mrs. Kiehl's house with a bowl and plate.
    I have thus called your attention to some of the leading points in the evidence produced on the one side and the other, but in doing so, I do not mean that you should confine your investigations alone to the evidence I have particularly alluded to. Excepting only the testimony which I have withdrawn from your consideration, all the evidence is for you, and it is your duty to give to it a calm, dispassionate, careful and deliberate consideration. You have seen the witnesses, have observed and noted their conduct and manner, and have heard them testify, and I have no doubt that you will be able to give to the testimony of each the weight and effect it deserves. The learned counsel on the one side and the other have fully discussed the evidence to you down to the minutest detail, and I refrain from making any further comment upon it.
    On part of the commonwealth, a hypothetical case was presented to the medical witnesses and their opinion asked as to the cause of death. The hypothetical case, the commonwealth's counsel allege, embodies a state of facts all of which have been proved. Whether the facts embodied in the hypothetical case are proved to have existed in this case, is a question for the jury, for when the opinion of a physician is asked upon a hypothetical case, it is for the jury to say whether the facts and circumstances stated in the hypothetical case are proved to have existed in the case trying, and if any fact or circumstance be stated that is not proved, or if the witness states any fact upon which his opinion is based, which is not proved to have existed in the case on trial, it is the duty of the jury to reject the answer of the witness entirely, for it would not be proper and legal evidence.
    Gentlemen, you are the sole judges of the evidence, and, of the credibility of the witnesses and it is your duty to determine whether the prisoner be guilty or not guilty of the crime wherewith she stands indicted; and if she be guilty of murder, to ascertain in your verdict, whether it be murder of the first or second degree. In deciding upon the case, or upon any material part of it, it is the duty of the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt arising out of the evidence, which prohibits them from coming to a satisfactory conclusion. But this doubt must fairly arise out of the evidence, and not be merely fancied or conjured up. A jury must not raise a mere fanciful or ingenious doubt to escape the consequences of an unpleasant verdict. It must be an honest doubt--such a difficulty as fairly strikes a conscientious mind and clouds the judgment. If the mind be fairly satisfied of a fact, on the evidence--as much so as would induce a man of reasonable firmness and judgment to take the fact as true, and to act upon it in a matter of importance to himself, it would be sufficient to rest a verdict upon it.
    I have now concluded the charge of the court and submit the case to you upon the law and the evidence. You will retire to the jury room and give to the case the consideration which it imperatively demands. You are to be governed by the law and by the evidence, and I trust that in the discharge of your duty you will render such a verdict as will do justice to the commonwealth and to the prisoner.
                                                      M. C. HERMAN,
                                                         President Judge.

Source:

Unknown, "Found Guilty, The Kiehl Murder Case," Valley Sentinel, Carlisle, Pa., Friday, 21 November 1879, page 5, cols. 3-6.