The trial of Squire Wynkoop, for the murder of Mrs. Kiehl, commenced on Thursday morning of last week, and on Thursday evening was submitted to the jury. A deep interest has been manifested on the part of the public, the court room being crowded from the opening of the case until the close. The testimony is entirely too voluminous to publish in any one issue of the SENTINEL. We are, however, through the courtesy of Judge Herman, permitted to publish his charge to the jury. This we are satisfied will give our readers a better knowledge of the facts in the case, as well as the character of the evidence, than they could gather from any abbreviated publication of the testimony. The court has grouped together all the material points, and in a calm, impassioned and dignified manner has given them to the jury. Let the result be what it may, it is universally conceded that the prisoner has been given every possible latitude consistent with the law governing the admission of testimony, and should the verdict be adverse to the prisoner, all must admit that the trial has been a fair and impartial one. In the name of our many readers we thank the court for the privilege of giving to them the charge in full.

Gentlemen of the Jury:

    William H. Wynkoop, the prisoner at the bar, stands charged before you with the crime of murder. The bill of indictment charges him 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 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 grades--murder of the first 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 or murder of the second degree. By the act of March 31, 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 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 charged to have been committed by the prisoner in this case, is that described as "perpetrated by means of poison." All murder perpetrated by means of poison, you will observe, is declared by our statute to be murder of the first degree; but the same statute 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 expressed 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 so doing. 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, 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.
    Now, although the indictment charges this prisoner with having killed and murdered Mrs. Mary Kiehl, the same as if he was present and committed the act himself or aided and abetted its commission, the allegation, on part of the commonwealth, is that Mrs. Kiehl was murdered by means of poison; that Mrs. Catharine Zell is the guilty person who actually administered the poison, and perpetrated the murder, and that the prisoner procured her to perpetrate it; and, therefore, it is contended that he was accessory before the fact to the murder of Mrs. Kiehl. An accessory before the fact is he who, being absent at the time of the felony committed, does yet procure, counsel, or command another to commit a felony, and his moral and legal guilt is the same as that of the principal offender. In the eye of God and in the eye of man, he who procures, counsels or commands another to commit the crime of murder is just as guilty as the person who actually commits it; and now under the 44th section of our Criminal Procedure act, it is provided that: "If any person shall become an accessory before the fact to any felony * * * such person many be indicted, tried and, convicted, and punished in all respects as if he was the principal felon." As to the form of the indictment, the 20th section provides that: "in any indictment for murder or manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which or the means by which the death of the dec'd was caused, but it shall be sufficient in every indictment for murder, to charge that the defendant did feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought kill and murder the deceased." It follows that if it be found that the prisoner was an accessory before the fact to the murder of the deceased, he may be convicted upon this indictment the same as if he actually perpetrated her murder. I do not consider that the evidence in this case would justify you in convicting the prisoner of manslaughter. If the prisoner procured, counseled or commanded Mrs. Catharine Zell to kill and murder Mrs. Mary Kiehl, and Mrs. Zell in pursuance of that procurement, counsel or command on the part of the prisoner, did kill and murder Mrs. Mary Kiehl by means of poison, then the prisoner would be guilty of the crime of murder of the first degree. If the evidence fails to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prisoner procured, counseled or commanded Mrs. Zell to kill and murder the deceased, and Mrs. Zell, in the pursuance of that procurement, counsel or command on the part of the prisoner, did kill and murder the deceased by means of poison, it will be your duty to acquit him. It appears from the evidence on part of the commonwealth that Mrs. Mary Kiehl, who was an aged widow woman residing near the fair grounds, in the borough of Carlisle, died on the night of Friday, the 30th of May, 1879. At the time of her death she was 80 years old. She was buried on Sunday afternoon the 1st of June. It being suspected that she had been the victim of foul play the coroner, on the 6th of June, had her body exhumed and summoned an inquest to inquire into the cause of her death. Dr. Kieffer, a resident physician of this borough, 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 he made the post-mortem examination, and has given, in minute detail, a description of the post-mortem appearances of the body, as he found them, the peculiar condition and appearance of the stomach and bowels, and cavity of the bowels, and abdomen; the condition of the liver, the pancreas and spleen, bladder and kidneys; the condition of the cavities of the pericardium and chest; the condition of the pericardium, heart and lungs. He says, that, supposing all the other organs to have been perfectly healthy, the patient could not possibly have lived any longer than she did with the inflammation which he found in the stomach and bowels; that there is no disease within the compass of his knowledge which could have invaded any of the other organs, or could have invaded the body at all, and produced the combination of circumstances which he has described, and that his conclusion was that the woman died from violence, and that, in his judgment, her death was caused by inorganic poison. He also says he removed the stomach and tied it at both ends, and, also, removed two or three sections from the small intestines, one about five inches from the stomach, and one further down the course of the small intestines of about nine inches each, and one section from the large intestine, that he also removed several sections from the liver; that the stomach and portion of the intestines, which he had removed, he placed in to a clean jar by themselves, and the sections taken from the liver, into another clean jar by themselves, and gave them to the coroner. These two jars, with the contents, the coroner 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 these two jars given to him by the coroner, and found as a result of his investigations that they contained arsenic; that he used the Marsh test, Renisches test, the nitrate of silver test, the sulphate of copper test, Bettendorf's test, the sulphuretted hydrogen test, and the reduction test, and as a result of each of these processes, being thereby confirmatory of one another, obtained from the contents undoubted evidences of arsenic. He has detailed in your hearing the manner in which he made his analysis, and has produced before you the products of his investigations. You have also the opinions of the medical experts upon the hypothetical case submitted to them, based upon the post-mortem appearances as described by Dr. Keiffer, and the result of the chemical analysis. I think you can have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the death of Mrs. Mary Kiehl was caused by arsenic.
    Now the allegation, on the part of the commonwealth, is that the deceased was murdered by means of poison; that Mrs. Catharine Zell actually administered the poison which caused her death, and thereby perpetrated the murder, and that this prisoner procured Mrs. Zell to murder the deceased. If this prisoner procured, counseled or commanded Mrs. Zell to kill and murder Mrs. Kiehl, and Mrs. Zell, in pursuance of that procurement, counseling or command on the part of the prisoner, did kill and murder Mrs. Kiehl, then, as we have seen, the prisoner, although not present at the perpetration of the murder, would, as an accessory before the fact, be, in the eye of the law, as guilty as Mrs. Zell, and may be convicted on this indictment. But the prisoner denies the guilt of Mrs. Zell, and his counsel contend that although Mrs. Kiehl may have died from the effects of poison, that Mrs. Zell did not administer the poison to her, and did not thereby cause her death. One who is tried as an accessory before the fact, may deny and controvert the guilt of his alleged principal, and as the prisoner has denied and controverted the guilt of Mrs. Zell, his alleged principal, it will be necessary for you to determine: 1. Whether Mrs. Kiehl's death was caused by poison. 2. Whether Mrs. Zell wilfully administered to Mrs. Kiehl, with the intention to kill her, the poison that caused her death, and 3, whether the prisoner procured, counseled or commanded Mrs. Zell to murder Mrs. Kiehl, in persuance of the procurement, counseling or command, killed and murdered the deceased.
    John L. Kutz, a grandson of the deceased, says, that on the night of Mrs. Kiehl's death, he heard, at the market-place, of her illness, and went out to her house and found her dying; that Mrs. Zell, James Zell and Joseph Ebright were there, and that she died about 9 o'clock or a little after. Joseph Kutz, the son-in-law of deceased, says, that on Monday, the day after the funeral the keys to the house were given to him and that he locked and nailed the doors and windows shut. It appears that the house remained closed up and unoccupied from that time up to the 28th of July, a contest having arisen and been carried on, in the meantime between the wife of Joseph Kutz and Wynkoop, about the probate of the last will and testament of Mrs. Kiehl, by which all her property was given to Wynkoop. Letters testamentary having been finally granted to Wynkoop, he took possession of the house on this 28th of July, and at the time he opened the house. Fred'k. Hays says, he and E. W. Biddle and others went there with him; that with Wynkoop's permission, Mr. Biddle got from the kitchen two tin coffee-pots, and gave them to him (Fred'k Hays) and that he, under Mr. Biddle's instructions, took the coffee-pots to Mr. Horn, the chemist, and gave them to him to analyze their contents. Mr. Horn testifies, that he made a chemical analysis of portions of the grounds and matter which he found in these coffee-pots and discovered that both pots contained arsenic.
    Benjamin Long testifies that after the prisoner obtained the letters testamentary, he took possession of the house and employed the witness to help him to prepare the goods for the sale; that he and the prisoner and the prisoner's wife and father came in to the house in a wagon; that the house was first unlocked, and the horse unhitched from the wagon; that then they went as far as Mrs. Zell's; that prisoner stopped at Mrs. Zell's a few minutes; then the witness proceeds: "Then we came on to the tavern and I returned back and Mr. Wynkoop staid in town. When I came back I found Mrs. Zell and Mrs. Wynkoop in the house, and they were at work cleaning up the house and ridding it for the sale. Then we took out some articles below; I did not take notice to what it was, but I took a carpet from off the floor and laid it out and then we went up stairs and cleaned up the front part of the house and removed the goods from the room in order to get it cleaned; then we removed the goods back again to make ready for the sale; and I was standing in the door; Mrs. Wynkoop was standing in front of a box near the bed and she says to Mrs. Zell: 'What is this?' Mrs. Zell took the package--it was a small package--and she handed it to her and she opened it, and read it and she says, 'It is arsenic--poison.' Mrs. Wynkoop said to me, 'All such little packages as this are to be laid away and given to Will when he comes and he is to give them to Mr. Emig, the state's attorney.' The witness says that he then laid the package away, and when Wynkoop came, gave it to him; that Wynkoop put it with another package on the top of the clock and said, "Now leave them packages there. I don't want anybody to touch them." It appears that this package labeled "Arsenic--Poison," was subsequently carried by the prisoner to the district attorney (Mr. Emig) and that it was then given to Mr. Horn for chemical analysis. Mr. Horn says he analyzed a portion of its contents and found it to be arsenic. This package has been put in evidence and you have examined it. You have observed that it has written on it the name "Rebecca Reed." The label, put on in the usual manner, has printed on it the words, "From Haverstick's drug and book store. Arsenic--Poison. North Hanover street, Carlisle." S. A. Haverstick testifies that this was one of his labels which he had printed, for his own use, about ten years ago, and which he used up to three and a half or four years ago, when he ceased to use them, and commenced to use another kind. He also says that he sold to this prisoner a package of arsenic on the 10th of January, 1876, whilst he was still using the kind of label which is found to be on this package in evidence. Now right here, it is contended by the commonwealth's counsel, that this is the same package of arsenic which the prisoner purchased from Mr. Haverstick on the 10th of January, 1876; that at the time of Mrs. Kiehl's death and whilst she was lying a corpse in her home, it was not in the box where, it is said, it was found, but that afterward, the name of Rebecca Reed was written upon it, by the prisoner, and that it was then placed in the box, to be again found, for the purpose of casting suspicion upon Rebecca Reed, who, as you have seen, is one of the principal witnesses for the commonwealth; and evidence has been given to show the similarity between the handwriting of the prisoner and the writing on the package. It is further contended that the writing of Rebecca Reed's name on this package and the placing of it in the box where it is said to have been found, was in pursuance of an understanding and conspiracy between the prisoner and Mrs. Zell; and that no one but a guilty person would be likely to resort to such an artifice.
    It appears that, for some years prior to Mrs. Kiehl's death, the prisoner had been acting as her (Mrs. Kiehl's) agent, in the management of her business, and had charge of some of her money, the amount alleged to have come into his hands being put by the witnesses at from $500 to $600. A power of attorney authorizing him to transact all her business, is said to have been given to him by her, sometime in the latter part of 1875, or beginning of 1876; and it appears, also, that on the 18th of April, 1876, she made her last will and testament by which she gave the prisoner all her estate and appointed him her executor, cutting off her daughter (Mrs. Joseph Kutz) with $5.00. It was the probate of this will which was the subject of a contest between the prisoner and Mrs. Kutz, after the death of Mrs. Kiehl, which on the 28th of July resulted in its probate and the granting of letters testamentary to the prisoner. Now it appears, by the testimony of S. M. Leidich, esq., and other witnesses, that, becoming dissatisfied with the manner in which the prisoner was managing and conducting her business, Mrs. Kiehl came to see Mr. Leidich about the latter part of March, 1879, in reference to the matter; that thereupon Mr. Leidich notified the prisoner and a meeting was arranged for, which was held between the parties and their counsel at Mr. Leidich's office, about four or five weeks afterwards--that is four or five weeks after the time that Mrs. Kiehl first went to see Mr. Leidich, which would bring it down to the latter part of April or beginning of May. At this meeting the prisoner was called upon to settle his accounts with Mrs. Kiehl. It was claimed that the real estate where she lives had been bought with her money, and the deed, without her knowledge, made in the name of Amanda Wynkoop, the wife of the prisoner. Mr. Leidich says that the prisoner admitted that he had got from Mrs. Kiehl $500 or $600 of her money, in gold and silver, and had taken it to Harrisburg and sold it; that a proposition of settlement was made on the part of the prisoner, but was refused by Mrs. Kiehl. Mr. Leidich then testifies: "I said to the squire (the prisoner) very decidedly then that a compromise of that kind--the kind proposed--could not be accepted; that so far as this personal property was concerned we could very easily make another will and would do so, and as to the real estate I would present a bill in equity and oblige him to reconvey. There was considerable talking on the part of the old lady and no settlement could be effected that day. She alleged that he had been defrauding her and was now starving her, and that she wanted all of her property out of his hands. He further says that the meeting ended without any basis of settlement being agreed upon, and that her death, a short time afterward, put an end to the negotiations. John Cornman, esq., differs in his testimony from Mr. Leidich as to the time of this meeting at Mr. Leidich's office. Mr. Cornman says it occurred "in the middle of April." John L. Kutz says that on the first of last April he (the witness) paid Mrs. Kiehl the interest on her dower fund at Mr. Hay's office, and that she talked to him and his brother and his father and the prisoner about settling, and said that the prisoner "had taken her money away and would not give a note and gave her none; that he took it away and sold it and never told what the profit was, or anything about it, and then she said that he hadn't given her a note, and he said it was a damned lie; then she said she wanted her things out of his hands, and wanted her money, and he said by God, mother, I will give you your money." George Kutz testifies that he was present at this interview and that Mrs. Kiehl said to the prisoner, "you took my money to Harrisburg and never told me how much you took down (gold and silver); and then he told her it was a damned lie; and then she said, Wynkoop, I want my money and things out of your hands; and then he said, by God I will give it to you." Thus it is contended that the evidence shows that the prisoner had a motive to put Mrs. Kiehl out of the way, by taking her life before she could take any further steps to bring him to an account, or revoke the will she had made in his favor.
    Mrs. Rebecca Reed testifies that the last time she saw Mrs. Kiehl was on the 28th of May; that she came to her house on the evening of the day before "to cure her of the wildfire;" that she "cured for her" on that evening, then came in to the evening market, and returned to Mrs. Kiehl's house and stayed all night; came in to the morning market and returned again to Mrs. Kiehl's house after the market, and found the breakfast partially prepared, the coffee already made and standing on the stoveplate; that she, at Mrs. Kiehl's request finished the preparation of the breakfast, and both sat down to eat it; that she and Mrs. Kiehl both drank of the coffee, and then the witness proceeds to these words: "After I drank the second swallow, I felt sick and faint, and said I believed I would walk out a little, that I felt sick. I went out through the garden, back in the lane and walked down the lane. I was very sick, and then I threw up dreadfully. Then, I came back in the house, and Mrs. Kiehl sat back from the table, beside the stove, and she threw up dreadfully. I went in the room and then went upstairs and laid down. Then Mrs. Kiehl came up and laid down. I sat on the floor awhile and laid my head on a chair and after awhile I came down, as soon as I felt able and started home. I was very sick on the road. Mrs. Kiehl came down stairs after I came down. She was sitting on a chair looking at some garden seeds, and when I started, she was standing at the door and bid me good-bye." Mrs. Kiehl died on the following Friday night, the 30th of May, 1879, at about 9 o'clock or a little after. Mrs. Reed further testifies: "The next time I came to town was on the Tuesday evening after Mrs. Kiehl's death. I called at Zell's (Mrs. Zell's) and said that the first time I would see her, I would tell her how sick that good coffee made us that she brought in, and she said she took that coffee too when she made her breakfast up that morning; that she did take it up to Mrs. Kiehl's and had to go home before she could finish up. She said she was surprised that I had to throw up, but was not surprised that Mrs. Kiehl threw up, that she had thrown up before and she had asked a colored woman what would prevent it, and the colored woman told something to her, she said. I said, didn't Mrs. Kiehl want a doctor, and she said, she didn't want a doctor; she said that Mrs. Kiehl said: God Almighty was her doctor. I asked her whether she died hard or not, and she said she didn't. She said she went out like a light. I said that Mrs. Kiehl had said she would send for me if she got worse; and she said Mrs. Kiehl didn't want to see me, or anyone else; she didn't send for anybody." Now it appears that Mrs. Zell denied that she was at Mrs. Kiehl's house at all on Wednesday. It is contended on part of the commonwealth, that she was there whilst Mrs. Reed was away at market in the morning, and had taken the coffee (or chocolate) to Mrs. Kiehl's, of which Mrs. Reed and Mrs. Kiehl drank on that morning, and that it had arsenic in it. Levi Barrick says that on this Wednesday morning he took a load of wood to Mrs. Kiehl's, between 7 and 8 o'clock, and that he saw Mrs. Zell there in the house; that Mrs. Zell came to the door, and he asked if Mrs. Kiehl was at home, and she came to the door; that he wanted to sell the wood, and asked fifty cents for it, and Mrs. Kiehl asked Mrs. Zell if it was worth that; and that Mrs. Zell said she would take a look; and that she did look and said it was worth what he asked for it; and that Mrs. Kiehl then took the wood and paid him for it and he threw it off into her cellar. Now S. M. Leidich testifies that at the coroner's inquest Mrs. Zell was called and then said that she had not been at Mrs. Kiehl's at all on Wednesday, and at first said she had not been there on Thursday, and then admitted that she had been there on Thursday afternoon, and finally that she had been there all day and had given her something to eat, and then afterwards that she had given her everything to eat that she did eat on Thursday and had taken her some kind of tea, catnip or sage; thinks sage; and admitted that she had been there on Friday when she died. E. W. Biddle, esq., testifies that, in August last, he sent for Mrs. Zell to come to see him in reference to the death of Mrs. Kiehl, and that she came; that he called W. F. Sadler, esq., in to the interview, and that in the conversation they then had with her she said she had not been at Mrs. Kiehl's house on Wednesday at all; that on Thursday she had been there to and from pretty much all day, had taken her sage tea and chocolate too, and something to eat. Witness then says: "I asked her where she got the chocolate, if it was customary, in the circumstances in which she and Mrs. Kiehl were, to drink chocolate. She said they never drank chocolate themselves, but that Mrs. Kiehl drank chocolate. I asked her where she got the chocolate to make it up for Mrs. Kiehl, and she said Mrs. Kiehl had given it to her. I asked her if she had any more of that chocolate left, and she said she thought she had a piece; that she would look and if she had, I could have it." Mr. Sadler says also, that at this interview she said or admitted she had given chocolate to Mrs. Kiehl; and Fred'k. Hays says that on the following day he called on her, at Mr. Biddle's request, and she gave him a piece of chocolate, and that he brought it in and gave it to Mr. Horn. The testimony of Mrs. Catharine Biehls is also relied upon to show that on Friday Mrs. Zell was the person who waited on Mrs. Kiehl, and also to show Mrs. Kiehl's condition on the afternoon and evening of that day. The testimony of Mr. Biddle is also relied upon to show that Mrs. Zell expressed the theory that Mrs. Reed was the guilty person. Other witnesses have been called to prove that an intimacy existed between Mrs. Zell and the prisoner, and to show the declarations of the prisoner soon after the death of Mrs. Kiehl, indicating a suspicion that she had been foully dealt with, and that he was suspected, and that he was the first to give expression to such suspicions. The commonwealth's counsel contend that from the time Mrs. Reed left the house of Mrs. Kiehl on Wednesday, no other human being but Mrs. Zell is shown to have been at this house until she was found in the agonies of death, and that no other person attended her or gave her anything to eat or to drink, and that no physician was called in, nor any of her relations sent for; and they claim that the prisoner was intimate with Mrs. Zell, and procured her to poison Mrs. Kiehl; that he had strong motives to do so, and that no other person is shown to have had an interest in her death; that he furnished the poison, and that she poisoned Mrs. Kiehl; that he joined with her in an attempt to have the crime put upon Mrs. Reed, and did everything to cast suspicion upon her; and that he anticipated his own arrest before any charge was made against him; and they contend that the evidence sufficiently proves not only that Mrs. Kiehl's death was caused by arsenical poisoning, but that Mrs. Zell killed and murdered her by means of poison, and that the prisoner procured her to kill and murder the deceased.
    On behalf of the prisoner it is contended that if the death of the deceased was caused by poison she took the poison voluntarily and not through or by the criminal act of another--in other words that it was an act of suicide. 2. That Mrs. Catharine Zell did not kill and murder the deceased, and even, if she did, that this prisoner did not procure, counsel or command her to do it.
    In support of the theory that Mrs. Kiehl committed suicide three witnesses have been called. William Sheaffer testifies that in the latter part of 1875, Mrs. Kiehl became dissatisfied at the house of Mr. Kutz, her son-in-law, with whom she had been living, and left then and came over to live with the daughter of the witness, and that she lived with her for some three months; that during that time she seemed to be in great trouble, and complained of the way she had been treated by her sons-in-law and daughters; that she was greatly agitated at times and that she, at three different times, declared that she saw no other way, or that no one should wonder if she put herself out of the way, that she had nothing to live off any more; that she seemed to be in so much trouble sometimes that she didn't know what she was doing. Sarah Nickey testifies that during the last winter and spring before her death she met Mrs. Kiehl frequently at Mrs. Zell's and that at different times she heard Mrs. Kiehl say she had a good deal of trouble, and if it didn't go better she would put herself out of the way. Joseph Ebright testifies that a couple of weeks before she took so sick, he was talking with her in her garden, and she said she had such trouble with her daughters, that they did not treat her right, and then she said she had such troubles with Wynkoop, and that she wanted all those things out of his hands, and she couldn't get it fixed; and that they were with a lawyer a couple of times and still she couldn't get it fixed, and then said it would not be any wonder if she would destroy her life.
    In answer to this theory, that Mrs. Kiehl committed suicide, the commonwealth's counsel, claim that the theory is an unreasonable one, wholly inconsistent and irreconcilable with the evidence given on the trial.
    The prisoner's counsel contend that Mrs. Zell did not kill and murder the deceased; and that even if she did, that this prisoner did not procure, counsel or command Mrs. Zell to kill and murder the deceased.
    An effort has been made to break down the testimony of Mrs. Rebecca Reed, one of the principal witnesses for the commonwealth, by the introduction of testimony 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 in contradiction of her testimony. Abraham Nisley and Franklin Wolf testify that on the 28th of 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 roadside in North Middleton township, 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 replied that she had not been at market all the time; that she was in cleaning house for Mrs. Kiehl. Franklin Wolf says her reply to this remark was that "she was not at market all the time, that she was in at Mrs. Kiehl's cleaning the house and blacking the stove," and this witness says further, "I saw her between three and four months after that. I went down there for harness, and she asked me, 'How did I say that day I came out of town?' Say I, 'You said you were in at Mrs. Kiehl's cleaning the house and blacking the stove.' 'No,' she said, 'I did not say so. I said I was to clean the house and blacken the stove, but I didn't get anything done. I didn't feel good.' I said to her, 'You didn't say so, you said as I told you before." You will remember that Mrs. Reed on cross-examination said she didn't tell Nisley and Wolf as they have testified, and denied that she had cleaned Mrs. Kiehl's house and denied also that she had blacked Mrs. Kiehl's stove on that Wednesday that she was there, and gave as an excuse that she was sick and couldn't clean the house or black the stove. Peter B. Walker testifies that one day at the market, after Mrs. Kiehl's death, he had a conversation with Mrs. Reed about the old lady's death, and that she told him she had been at Mrs. Kiehl's cleaning the house and blacking the stove. Catharine Biehls testifies that on this Wednesday morning she saw Mrs. Reed at Mrs. Kiehl's home, and from the porch of her own house, which adjoins, she heard a rubbing on the stove as of some one blacking it. Susan Biehls says that she saw her with a blacking brush in her hand blacking the stove. The testimony of these and other witnesses is relied on not only to contradict Mrs. Reed and thus affect her credibility as a witness, but to show that she actually did black the stove and that her statement that she got sick that day is untrue, because she could not have done any such work if she got as sick from drinking the coffee as she says she did. But in rebuttal, Ellen Kutz testifies that on the day of the funeral she saw the stove; that it was dusty on the sides and red on the top and looked as if it had not been blacked for a long time, and John Kutz says it looked as if it had not been blacked for a long time. It is also contended by the prisoner's counsel that she made statements at the coroner's inquest inconsistent with what she has testified to on the witness stand. Eighteen witnesses have been called who testify that Mrs. Reed's reputation for truth and veracity is bad, and fourteen of them swear they would not believe her on her oath; whilst on the other hand seventeen witness have testified that her reputation for truth and veracity is good, and most of them say that they would believe her on her oath.
    As to the testimony of Levi Barrick, the prisoner's counsel called to the stand Sarah Nickey and Emma Hoffendster, who both testify that it was on the 21st of May, that Barrick brought the wood, just one week before the time Barrick says he brought it. Levi Barrick, you will remember is the witness who testifies that he brought a load of wood to Mrs. Kiehl's on the morning of the 28th day (Wednesday) and found Mrs. Zell at the house.
    The testimony of Susan Hunter, Sarah Nickey, Israel Nickey, Philip Nickey and others are all relied on to show that Mrs. Zell could not have been at Mrs. Kiehl's house on the Wednesday morning before her death.
    Catharine Biehls testified that she saw Mrs. Kiehl eating her breakfast in her kitchen on Thursday morning.
    The prisoner's counsel contend that the social and neighborly relations existing between Mrs. Zell and Mrs. Kiehl was of the most friendly character and precludes the probability that Mrs. Zell could have been induced by any one to take the life of Mrs. Kiehl, and the testimony of Susan Hunter, Sarah Nickey and others, is relied on to show that their relations toward one another was thus friendly.
    As to the package of arsenic in evidence which Benjamin Long says was found in Mrs. Kiehl's house, the prisoner's counsel have shown by the testimony of S. A. Haverstick, that he sold a package of arsenic to Joseph Kutz on the 27th Oct., 1875, and a package of arsenic to Kennedy Reed (the husband of Rebecca Reed), on the 14th Sept., 1874. On both of which the same kind of label was placed as that on the package sold to the prisoner on the 10th of January, 1876. And in reference to this branch of the case, Matthew Wynkoop, the father of the prisoner, testified that the prisoner purchased for him a package of arsenic some three or four years ago and he (the witness) used it all to poison rats.
    But it is further contended that, even if it be found that Mrs. Zell did kill and murder Mrs. Kiehl, that this prisoner did not procure, counsel or command Mrs. Zell to kill Mrs. Kiehl; that he was not on terms of intimacy with Mrs. Zell, and that the evidence does not show that he induced Mrs. Zell to kill Mrs. Kiehl, and does not justify such an inference; that instead of refusing to come to a settlement with Mrs. Kiehl, he met her and her counsel and proposed favorable terms of settlement, and expressed a willingness to convey the real estate to her upon the payment of the amount of his book account, and that the alleged motive was not such as would justify the inference that he was or could have been thereby moved to procure her murder. As to the alleged guilty knowledge that a crime had been committed, that Mrs. Kiehl had been the victim of foul play, it is claimed that the prisoner gave expression, only, to that which report or rumor had brought to his ears, and that he entertained no suspicion in his own mind until such suspicion was communicated to him by others. John Cornman and Theo. Cornman, esquires, testify as to the prisoner's conduct in reference to the package of arsenic taken from Mrs. Kiehl's house, and it is contended that his conduct in relation to it is entirely consistent with his innocence; that he promptly disclosed its discovery and carried it without hesitation to the district attorney, and did what he could in reference to it, to ascertain its meaning and significance. It is contended that no doctor was called in to see Mrs. Kiehl for the reason that she did not want a doctor; that she had been heard to say that "Jesus was her doctor;" and that her near relations were not called in because she and her daughter's family were not on friendly terms; and the testimony of Joseph Ebright and others is referred to in support of this.
    It is also contended by the prisoner's counsel that in the contest between the prisoner and Mrs. Kutz over the probate of Mrs. Kiehl's will, Mrs. Zell testified in favor of Mrs. Kutz; and it appears that her statements made at that time pointed to the proving of a non cupative will in favor of Mrs. Kutz; and it is therefore claimed by the prisoner's counsel that her position was hostile to the prisoner.
    I have thus called your attention to some of the leading points in the evidence produced on the one side and the other, but I do not mean, in doing so, to confine your attention alone to the evidence I have particularly alluded to. All the evidence is for you and it is your duty to give to all the evidence 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 upon the one side and the other have fully discussed the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses in their addresses to you; they have done so, at great length, and I refrain from making any further comment.
    On part of the commonwealth, a hypothetical case was presented to the medical witnesses, and their opinions asked as to the cause of death. This 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 so have existed in this case, is a question for you; 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.
    The evidence in this case is circumstantial, and not positive. Circumstantial evidence may be quite as satisfactory and convincing, and in some cases, more so than positive evidence. Witnesses may be of doubtful character. They may swear positively to the fact of killing, and they may be perjured, or they may be honestly mistaken in the identity of the person; but when a chain of facts are sworn to by a number of witnesses of undoubted credibility, pointing, with unerring certainty to the guilt of the accused, and incorrigible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, this may be more satisfactory, than the evidence of two or three witnesses, who swear positively to facts about which they may be mistaken, or designedly misrepresent the truth. In order to justify a conviction of crime, on circumstantial evidence, each fact, necessary to the conclusion sought to be established, must be proved by competent evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt; all the facts must be consistent with each other, and with the main facts sought to be proved; and the circumstances taken together, must be of a conclusive nature, and leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused committed the offence charged.
    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 he stands charged, and if he be guilty of murder, to ascertain in your verdict, whether it be murder of the first degree or murder of the 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 prevents them from coming to any 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 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.

    The case was given to the jury at half-past six o'clock, Thursday evening. After an interval of less than an hour the bell was sounded, and the court room was soon filled to its utmost capacity. The prisoner was brought in and court opened. The verdict, "Not Guilty," was received with applause, and the prisoner was heartily congratulated. On motion of Mr. Shearer, Wynkoop was discharged from custody and he walked forth a free man.

Source:

Unknown, "The Wynkoop Case, A Trial of Great Interest, Found Not Guilty, The Judge's Charge," Valley Sentinel, Carlisle, Pa., Friday, 23 January 1880, page 8, cols. 1-6.