
    HAND v. STATE.
    (No. 3744.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 27, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Daw <&wkey;478 — Opinion Evidence-Competency op EXPERTS.
    A graduate chemist of several years’ experience, who at the time was a city chemist, and who made an analysis of the stomach of a man killed by poison, and found strychnine sulphate therein, was qualified to express an opinion as to how much strychnine sulphate would produce the death of a man.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1065, 1066; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;> 478.]
    2. Homicide <&wkey;164 — Evidence — Admissibility.
    On a trial for poisoning a man who died on July 3d, where defendant contended that deceased was a sickly man, and might have committed suicide on account of despondency caused by ill health, evidence that he had worked for a witness for nearly a year, extending up to June 25th, when he was excused on leave of absence, and that during all of such time he never lost a day on account of sickness or for any other cause, was admissible.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 318; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>164.]
    3. Homicide <&wkey;166 — Evidence — Admissibility.
    On a trial of a woman for killing a man with whom she had been living, where the case depended on circumstantial evidence, evidence that, when she and deceased rented rooms from a witness, she told the witness that deceased was a millionaire, and that after his death she said he was a pauper, and would have to be buried by the city, at the same time saying that she had $30,000 in a bank, was admissible, it appearing that she had no such amount in that or any other bank, but that she then had $2,400 of deceased’s money, since, in a case depending solely on circumstantial evidence, the mind seeks to explore every possible source from which any light, however feeble, may be derived.
    [Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 320-331; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>166.]
    4. Cbiminal Daw <&wkey;406—Evidence—State-ments by Defendant While under Ar-' rest.
    On a trial of a woman for killing a man with whom she had been living, an officer who after deceased’s death went to his rooming place to make an investigation testified that he found f2,400 in money shown to have belonged to the eceased; that defendant had some $330 in a purse which she claimed as hers; that he searched the rooms, and, not finding the remainder of the' money, informed defendant that he would take her to the city hall to be searched; that she then admitted that she had the money, reached down into her stocking, and handed the officer $2,100; that she claimed deceased gave her the money, and said she had a will, but that she had left it at another place; but that later she pulled off her shoe and took the will out of the bottom of her shoe. Held that, the money having been found by reason of her statements made at the time, this testimony was admissible, even though defendant had been under arrest at the time, which was not shown to be the case.
    [Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Criminal Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 785, 894-917, 920-927; Dee. Dig. &wkey;>406.]
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.
    Sallie Hand, alias Sallie Wheeler, was convicted of murder, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    D. B. Camp and D. A. Dawhon, both of San Antonio, for appellant. Joe H. H. Graham, Asst. Dist. Atty., of San Antonio, and C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of administering strychnine poison to Eugene Savoy in sufficient quantity to cause his death. That Savoy died of strychnine poisoning is shown beyond peradventure of a doubt, but appellant earnestly insists that the evidence is insufficient to show that she administered it to him.

An able presentation of both the theory of the state and defendant is made by the attorney for the defendant and the attorneys for the state. After a careful review of the testimony, we are of the opinion the circumstances shown are sufficient to sustain the verdict. The court instructed the jury that it was a case depending on circumstantial evidence in a well-prepared charge. Appellant makes no complaint of the charge, and, viewing the evidence as we do, we will not disturb the verdict.

There are several bills of exception in the record; the first complaining that Herman Nester was permitted to testify as to his opinion as to how much strychnine sulphate would produce the death of a man. The witness qualified as an expert, being a graduated chemist of several years’ experience, and at the time he testified being city chemist of the city of San Antonio. He made. the analysis of the stomach of the deceased, and testified to the finding of six-tenths of a grain of strychnine sulphate in the body of the dead man.

One of the contentions made by appellant was that deceased was a sickly man, and therefore may have committed suicide on account of despondency caused by his ill health. The evidence shows that deceased and appellant became acquainted in June, and that they lived together from about July 3d until the day of his death. Appellant objected to Henry Fink, Jr., being permitted to testify that deceased had been in his employ for nearly a year, extending up to June 25th, when deceased was excused on leave of absence; that during all the months deceased was in his employ he never lost a day on account of sickness or any other cause. The court did not err in admitting this testimony.

Appellant, at the time she and deceased rented rooms from one of the witnesses, told the witness that deceased was a millionaire. After his death she said deceased was a pauper, and would have to be buried by the city, at the same time saying she had $30,000 in the Frost National Bank. The record would clearly show she had no such amount of money in that or any other bank, but did have some $2,400 of deceased’s money in her possession at the time she said he was a pauper. This being a case depending on circumstantial evidence, the testimony was admissible, for, as said by this court in Noftsinger v. State, 7 Tex. App. 307, in a case depending wholly upon circumstantial evidence, the mind seeks to explore every possible source from which any light, however feeble, may be derived.

Shortly after the death of Eiugene Savoy, Officer Dancaster went to his rooming place to make an investigation. He said he found about $2,400 in money; that appellant had some $330 in a purse, which appellant claimed was hers. He searched the premises, and, not finding the remainder of the money, he informed appellant he would take her to the city hall and have her searched. She then admitted she had the money, and reached down in her stocking and handed the officer some $2,100. She claimed that deceased had given her the money. The officer asked her if she had a will, and she said she had, but that it was at a residence near the San Antonio & Arkansas Pass depot. Eater she pulled off her shoe and took the will out of the bottom of the shoe. Appellant objected to this testimony on the ground that she was under arrest. There is nothing in the record to show that she was then under arrest, nor that she was arrested on that occasion even after the money was found. The money was found by reason of her statements made at .the time, and this would render the testimony admissible even if she had been under arrest.

There was no error in overruling tlie motion requesting the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. As herein before stated, the facts and circumstances were sufficient to authorize a verdict of guilty.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      &wkey;>For other cases see same .topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      ©=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     