Jones, a self-confessed murderer,
swears that upon the advice and under the direction of Patrick (though
in the latter's absence) he killed his master by administering
chloroform. There is no direct corroborative evidence save that of the
experts. Upon Jones's testimony depended the question of Patrick's
conviction or acquittal, and of itself this was not sufficient, for
being that of an accomplice it must, under the New York law, be
corroborated.
In the confession of Jones the State had sufficient _direct_ evidence
of the crime and of Patrick's connection with it, providing there was
_other evidence tending to connect Patrick with its commission_. This
corroborative evidence is largely supplied by the facts which show that
for a long time Patrick conspired with Jones to steal the bulk of Mr.
Rice's estate at his death. This evidence not only shows Patrick's
possible motive for planning Mr. Rice's _murder_, but also tends to
corroborate Jones's whole story of the conspiracy.
Rice did not know Patrick even by sight. He had heard of him only as a
person retained by another lawyer (Holt) to do "the dirty work" in an
action brought by Rice against Holt, as executor, to set aside Mrs.
Pages:
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257