THE

MONTHLY LAW REPORTER.

MAY, 1848.

TRIAL OF DR. COOLIDGE.

THE trial of Dr. Coolidge was commenced at Augusta, (Me.) on the 14th of March. The prisoner was charged with the murder of one Edward Matthews at Waterville, on the 30th of September, 1847. The interest excited by the murder of Matthews and the trial of Coolidge has not been confined to the immediate vicinity, and we have taken some pains to procure and preserve several of the facts, which may interest the profession.

Dr. Coolidge was a physician in Waterville. His practice was extensive and respectable, and up to the time when the charge of murder was first brought against him, he enjoyed, to an unusual degree, the confidence of the community among whom he dwelt.

The circumstances attending the murder cannot be set forth without some minuteness of detail. On the morning of Friday, October 1, 1847, the body of the deceased was discovered in the cellar under the shop of Mr. Shorey, and in the building, the second story of which was formerly occupied by the prisoner as his office. There were marks of violence on the head and body, but they did not appear to have resulted from wounds which could have caused death. The boots of the deceased were perfectly clean, and the clothes were not

soiled, circumstances from which it was at once inferred that the deceased could not have been walking in the streets, nor could he have died after a violent struggle. He was last seen at the Parker House (Waterville), on the preceding night between eight and nine o'clock, and when the body was found, the next morning, a watch and some money which he was known to have had on the preceding evening, were both missing.

A coroner's inquest being, of course, called at once, Dr. Coolidge attended, professionally. He also made a statement, as a witness, that the afternoon before, Matthews called at his office to borrow money for two gentlemen who were speculating in western lands, but that he told him he had none to spare; that he came to his office again at about eight o'clock in the evening, and was very anxious to borrow until the next day, and that, then, he (Coolidge) lent him $200; that Matthews took out the rest of his money, counted it, then put it into his pocket, and stepped out of the office; that he (Coolidge) going out shortly after, saw him in company with two men, before David Shorey's shop-door.

The manner of Matthews's death was thus, for some time, involved in mystery, but suspicion by degrees attached itself to Dr. Coolidge. It became generally reported that he had been very much pressed for money, had offered extravagant interest for the use of it, and that no one had been seen in the company of the deceased after the prisoner. The physicians detected what they thought to be signs of poison, and, at last, a young man, who had been a student in the prisoner's office, disclosed facts which implicated him far more than he was willing to acknowledge, and which developed other circumstances affording almost conclusive proof of guilt.

Upon this, the following case was suggested on the part of the government and supported by numerous witnesses.

That the prisoner (who was greatly in want of money), knew that the deceased had $1500 in his possession; that thirteen days before the murder, he sent to Hallowell for the strongest kind of hydrocianic acid, which he received; that, two days after, he sent to Boston for the same article, which he also received; that the deceased engaged to meet the prisoner at his office on the evening of the murder; that the deceased

actually attended there; that the situation of his office favored the commission of the crime; that his students were got out of the way; that, in the afternoon, the deceased drank brandy at the prisoner's office; that the phial of hydrocianic acid, which stood near the bottle in the afternoon, full, was found empty afterwards; that the prisoner used every effort to conceal the evidence of his guilt; that when it appeared by the post mortem examination, that poison had caused the death of Matthews, the prisoner caused the brandy bottle to be rinsed, and the acid bottle to be destroyed; that when Flint (his student) went into the office on the night of the murder, he found Matthews dead in the back office; that the prisoner told him he dropt down dead while drinking brandy, and that he had beaten him on the head to convey the idea that he had fallen by the hand of violence, and that he must assist him in getting him from the office, or they would be suspected of having murdered him; that after various proposals to carry to the river, or the street, it was arranged to carry to the cellar; that prisoner went below to clear the way, came up, bound the head, and carried the body to the place where found, came up, and prisoner then returned to see that no traces were left behind, and returned saying all was right; that Flint then returned to the tavern, leaving prisoner behind, who came not long after; that on Friday, P. M., after the disclosure of J. Matthews that deceased was to let prisoner have money, he then told Flint there was $1000 under the carpet under the safe, which he desired him to remove; that after the doctors had reported hydrocianic acid in the stomach of deceased, he told Flint the empty acid phial had better be broken, and requested him to replace the other upon the shelf and fill it up with water; he also requested him to rinse the wash-bowl and bottles, and desired him to get the watch and throw it into the river; and furthermore, that at the post mortem examination the prisoner took the direction, himself removing the scalp, and, examining the wounds upon the head, pronounced them fatal-removed the stomach-himself pouring out the contents, remarking that they retained the smell of brandy, and had better be thrown away. Thus the whole conduct of the prisoner favored this theory of the commission of the crime which he had a motive and an opportunity for accomplishing.

We say this case was supported by numerous witnesses. It can hardly be said to have been established, for although there was direct evidence to almost every point, part of it was contradicted, and part of it was of doubtful credibility. The prisoner was convicted, and the jurors undoubtedly considered the evidence irresistible, or they could never have overcome the powerful antipathy to capital punishment, which is now so general. Besides, we do not think that it falls within the province of a legal review to criticize the abstract questions of fact contained in the verdict of a jury. But the construction put upon certain facts becomes important as establishing a new rule in regard to presumptions. In this connection we take the liberty of doubting whether the government were held quite strictly enough to the proof of a motive.

In a charge of murder, the first great duty of the prosecutors is to prove the corpus delicti. This may be proved by direct or indirect evidence. If proved indirectly, the connec tion between the known acts of the prisoner and the death of the deceased must be proved so as to establish the fact of malicious killing, and under such circumstances, the existence of an adequate motive becomes a most essential element of the case. In regard to malice, the supreme court of Maine, in this instance, appear to have coincided with the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Wilde in Commonwealth v. York, (9 Met. 93); S. C. 7 Law Rep. 497, 571; that the presumption of malice does not arise from the mere fact of killing, but that the malicious killing, as a single proposition, must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury. Thus, Chief Justice Whitman says, "It is incumbent on the government to satisfy you beyond a doubt that the person alleged to be murdered is dead. That being made out, the next point is, did he come to his death by artificial means, inflicted by some other hand; and next, was the crime or the death occasioned with what the law denominates malice prepense, or malice aforethought?"

How was it with Dr. Coolidge? It appeared, by the evidence of certain witnesses, that the prisoner had offered most exorbitant sums for the use of money even for a short time, and the general idea intended to be conveyed appears to have been that his immediate necessities were so pressing that he was willing to risk his life and reputation, and to commit one of the