It begins at first with a brief obituary in the New Jersey Mirror on 21 Sep 1892, mentioning her death:
"PEAK.--Near Mount Holly, September 18, Lizzie Peak, aged 23 years."

Over 3 months pass, during which, apparently, there was much news that did not get entirely reported, judging from the contents of this piece in the Mirror on 4 Jan 1893:
The Peak and Warner families are a strange combination, and all concerned have been the subject of much comment since the murder trial began. Wesley is on trial for the murder of Lizzie Peak, whom he lived with for nearly two years but was never married to her. The wife whom he abandoned sits in Court every day with Warner's mother, sisters and brothers. Clarence Warner, the prisoner's brother , is the husband of Amanda Peak, one of Lizzie's sisters. They were married a couple of years ago but have not lived together for some time and Amanda has resumed her maiden name. The parents of both Lizzie and Warner were aware that they were living together illicitly, and instead of offering any objection seemed rather to encourage the mesalliance. "Mrs." Laura Dunlap, of Burlington, a witness in Warner's behalf, proved to be a girl apparently about 15 years old. Her husband, also a witness, appeared to be but a year or two her senior. The following society item from the Burlington Enterprise may interest some who are reading the evidence in the murder trial: "Mr. and Mrs. Otho Bunting are spending the holidays in Chicago, combining business with pleasure." To simplify matters, I've made this diagram:

	Joseph Peak													Hezekiah Warner===Rebecca
   	|						she is sister to Mrs. Frank Powell's 1st husband				|
   	|								|      								|	
_______________________________________________				|		_________________________________________________________________________________________
| 		|		|	      |				|		|               |                |               |		|		|   	 |
|       	|		|	      |				|		|		|		 |		 |		|		|     	 | 	
Amanda        -->Lizzie Peak     Julia Peak  Katie Peak==George Asay	|->Ellen===Wesley Warner	Wilbur Warner  Albertus      Freda Warner   Lillie Warner  Clarence    Renie Warner (d. Jul 1892)
|	      |	"married" to			      					|(the killer)									|	
md. to	      |	 Wesley-----------------------------------------------------------------|							                        |
|	      |										|										|
Clarence =====|=========================================================================================================================================================
	      |	
             she lived with Otho Bunting prior 
		to meeting Wesley.

All the gory details followed in that same issue, however, with this description:

"The murder trial is still the absorbing topic of the day and the attendance would be greatly augmented if Judge Garrison would allow the people to use the standing room.

Joseph Peak, father of the murdered girl was the first witness. He substantiated in,(sic.) every particular the story told by his wife who was on the witness stand on Tuesday. He said Lizzie and the prisoner first became acquainted while they lived in Burlington. He couldn't say who went with Lizzie when she went to Brooklyn to live; she wrote home occasionally and my wife answered the letters; she came home twice during her stay in Brooklyn and was accompanied by Warner who roomed with her; when they went back they took my youngest daughter, Julia; they came back again in September, just a week before the Mount Holly fair; Warner drank a little at times; I went to the fair and one day saw Warner in a fight with some one; he was pretty drunk at that time; I left the grounds about five o'clock with my wife and children; it was between 7 and 8 o'clock on Saturday evening when we started down town; when we returned we met Mrs. Warner with Wesley in a carriage out by the graveyard on Pine street. Mrs. Warner asked us to let Wesley go home with us and we consented; his mother then bade him good bye and told him to go with us and be a good boy; he had been drinking but was not drunk; when we reached home we went into the kitchen and sat down; we entered into conversation and Warner said a good many disagreeable things about Lizzie; I told him to shut up, got to bed or go out of the house; my wife then tried to get him to go to bed, but he refused to do so even after she led him into the bed-room, he said the bed was too lonely; he talked about Lizzie being frail and unable to do work that would bring her a living; I told him she was strong enough to do any kind of work, and could earn her a living; I told him she was strong enough to do any kind of work, and could earn her living anywhere;

"Well," he replied, "you see if I don't live longer than she does." When my wife hid the carving knife under the meat dish and piled the dishes around it Wesley was sitting in the room; we left the light burning and bolted the door before we went to bed, and left Warner sitting at the table; when we were called later I came down and found the door open; the light was burning but Warner had disappeared; it was sometime afterward that my wife missed the knife from under the dishes.

The witness was handed the knife which he identified as belonging to him and which was stolen the night of the murder. Mr. Hendrickson then began the cross-examination of the witness.
Mr. Peak said he was not in the court-room when his wife gave her testimony and had not talked to her about it since; I do not remember saying at the Coroner's inquest that the knife was "piled up" under some dishes when we went to bed; I do not remember now just what I said then.

The testimony taken at the inquest was then read to him, and the above language was found to be correct; witness then admitted having said it.
Warner seemed very relentless at our house on the night of the murder; he would sit down awhile and then get up and walk around the room; I do not remember just what he was talking about during all this time; could not say that he complained of Lizzie being with bad men and dissolute women on the Fair grounds; when I told him I would not hear my children talked about and that he must shut up, go to bed, or go out, I did not speak severely to him; he did not cry when my wife tried to get him to go to bed; we did not take a drink together; he asked me to drink, but I refused; he generally addressed me and my wife as "pop" and "mom;" I had no bottle with me and drank nothing that night; he showed the effect of the liquor he had drank(sic.); when he came home at nights during Fair week up to Thursday night I could see that he had been drinking a little; in the fight on the Fair grounds on Thursday there were several against Warner, but when I saw them Wesley was on top; he came home very drunk that night, but did not make much noise; I do not think he made any complaints about the way Lizzie was acting upon this occasion; I am pretty sure he ate breakfast with us on Friday morning; he asked me how much he owed for his and Lizzie's board; he was not in a good humour; when he went out that morning he had not gone far before he came back to meet me and we had a conversation; I do not remember him saying that Lizzie had disgraced him, his family and every one else, by her conduct on the Fair grounds the day before. The furniture at her house, at Burlington, when she kept boarding house there was her own property; I do not know that it was purchased for her by Otho Bunting, who boarded with her; I helped her move when she went to Brooklyn; I was aware of the fact that Warner was not married to Lizzie while they were going together and sleeping in the same bed; I also knew that Warner was a married man at the time, having deserted his wife and four children.

Amanda Peak, a sister of Lizzie Peak, was next sworn. She said
I first knew of Lizzie's intimacy with Warner when we lived in Burlington: when they moved to Brooklyn I went with them; Clarence Warner went with us; he is my husband; we were married in Burlington; we had two rooms in the boarding house at Brooklyn; Wesley and Clarence slept in one room and myself and Lizzie in the other; when Lizzie's furniture arrived we hired a flat containing a parlor and three bedrooms; we all lived there until after Wesley was arrested; that was about three months after we moved there.
Lizzie and Warner occupied one of the bedrooms the same as man and wife; I was home when Lizzie and Wesley came on from Brooklyn to spend the Fourth of July; that was this year; they arrived on Saturday; there seemed to be no trouble between them; on Monday he went out to hunt work and when he returned he showed he had been drinking; on Thursday morning he said he didn't want her to go to the Fair, because he had no money to give her; he then asked her for some money, but she refused to give it to him; we all went to the fair that day and twice during the day we went to the stand where Wesley was working and each time he gave Lizzie fifty cents; we then went to the flying swing and took a ride; we were with Ollie Broom and Annie Rossell and some young fellows we knew from Burlington; we afterwards went over to the beer bar under the grand stand and took a seat outside; one of the fellows went in and brought out five glasses of beer; one of these he upset on the front of Lizzie's dress; just then Warner came up and seeing that her dress was wet accused her of being drunk and vomiting; Warner then endeavored to kick up a fight, saying he would lick any man in the crowd; they went over by the race track where Wesley got pretty badly scarred and bruised; he was very drunk; Lizzie and I left the grounds that night together about 6 o'clock; we met Warner downtown and he wanted Lizzie to take him out home with her but she refused because he was too drunk; she wouldn't have anything to do with him, and told him he was a pretty looking thing with his face all scarred up.
"If I were you I'd go and jump in the creek," was her parting salute as she walked away with me; Lizzie went home with me and we went to bed together; Warner came home later, entered the room and began to curse at and abuse Lizzie, calling her the vilest names; said she was drunk on the Fair grounds that day and was running around with men and women of easy virtue; I got up and left the room, going to bed upstairs.

At the breakfast table, the next morning Warner remarked to Lizzie "I've got a pretty-looking face, and it was all on your account." Lizzie replied, "It serves you right, and you ought to have more of it." Warner then asked her if she wanted him to come back that night, and she said, "No, I don't want anything more to do with you." He replied, "All right, you'll be sorry for it some day." We saw no more of him from that Friday morning until Saturday night, when we went down town; at the hotel, Warner met us and asked Lizzie if he could speak to her; she replied in the negative and said she didn't want anything more to do with him. Mrs. Warner then drove up and asked for Lizzie, saying she wished to speak to her; Lizzie got in a buggy, and Mrs. Warner drove off; they were gone about 10 or 20 minutes; after that we went to the opera house; after the entertainment Lizzie, Katie and myself started home, accompanied by Harry Matlack, Thomas Shinn and Chester Stroud; Lizzie and Matlack walked ahead, Katie and Stroud next, followed by Tom Shinn and myself; when we turned into the South Pemberton road, we were compelled to walk single as the path is very narrow; we had not gone far before I saw a man get up from behind a bush; he arose from the ground very slowly, and I saw he had a knife in his hand; he at once exclaimed, "O, G-d d--n you!" whereupon Lizzie started to run towards the middle of the road; he ran between us just in front of young Stroud; I could see the knife in his hand and recognized him at once as Wesley Warner; I saw him rush at Lizzie and saw him strike the fatal blow with the knife; he made an effort to strike her a second time, but I pulled him away by his coat; he then made a strike at me, but I pushed him off and he started to run towards Mount Holly.

Upon cross examination witness said there were no lights on the South Pemberton road and there was no moon, but she could distinguish persons and objects several feet distant.
After she married Clarence Warner they lived with Lizzie at her boarding-house in Burlington. She said she did not know whether his sister lived with Otho Bunting or not; she could not say whether they occupied the same room together.

She remembered one occasion when Warner came there to see Lizzie, and was very drunk; Warner's wife came after him and they would not let her in.

Katie Peak, another of Lizzie's sisters was next sworn.
Her testimony began with the day of the murder, as the court did not deem it necessary to go over the past life of either the dead girl or the prisoner. Being with Amanda the sister who preceded her upon the witness stand, and a witness of the murder, her testimony was in all important particulars the same as that of Amanda. Katie is a very pretty girl and is the youngest of the three who were together on the night of the murder. The defense failed to destroy the story in any particular.

Harry Matlack was called next.
He is the young man who acted as escort to Lizzie on the way home the night of the murder.
When they turned into the South Pemberton road the party walked single file and witness took the lead, followed by Lizzie and the others coming after them. He said he never knew Lizzie Peak before that night; he met her on the street; he saw Warner get up from behind the bush, but did not see any knife in his hand; he saw him strike Lizzie and saw her stagger and fall; he did not recognize who it was until he heard Wesley Warner's name called; he then recognized him at once; he was the first one to reach Lizzie's side, and found her lying on the ground. She was dead when he reached her; it was then between five and ten minutes after twelve o'clock; he went to Mount Holly at once in search of a physician and did not return to the scene again; he did not know that Lizzie had been stabbed until she was carried into Bryan's house; he thought the man had only struck her with his fist.

Thomas Shinn was sworn next.
He walked home with Amanda Peak on the night of the murder, and witnessed the fatal stabbing of Lizzie Peak by Wesley Warner; he was the last one in the line when they were walking single file along the South Pemberton road toward the Peak family's house; he had a personal acquaintance with Wesley Warner, and recognized him at the moment he plunged the carving knife into Lizzie Peak's body; he gave chase when Warner started to run after killing Lizzie, but could not catch up to him.

Chester Stroud was sworn next.
He accompanied Katie Peak home the night of the murder and was a witness to the scene; he made the acquaintance of Wesley Warner during the Fair week, never having known him before; he saw a man behind a bush as they were walking along in single file on the South Pemberton road, and saw him rise from a squatting position, break through the line, and rush after Lizzie, who had recognized the man as Wesley Warner, the prisoner at the bar; after quieting the girls he went with Matlack after a doctor.

Joseph F. Bryan, sworn: He met the Peak girls and the three fellows on their way home on Pine street; he lives nearly opposite the south Pemberton road on Pine street; he left the party at his gate, and it must have been a little after 12 o'clock; it was a very pretty starlight night; he stood listening to the merriment of the jolly party as they turned into the south Pemberton road, when suddenly there was a wild scream, and a woman's voice exclaimed, "If you touch me I'll knock you down;" a few moments afterward a man passed me on a run; I asked him, "What is the matter up there ?" he said, "They're fighting me;" he then passed on; witness went to the point whence the screaming came, and one of the party said, "He has killed my sister;" the body was taken to Mr. Bryan's house, where he felt her pulse and found her dead; he then went down for a physician and an officer; on Water street, near Zelley's hotel stables, he saw a man and hailed him by asking his name; he replied that his name was Jones and he was after a doctor; when asked to stop he refused and hurried down Water street; he thought he could recognize the man again if he should wear the same hat; he saw the hat at the Coroner's inquest and learned that it belonged to Wesley Warner.
Mrs. Wesley Warner, the deserted wife of the prisoner, was then called, but the defense objected, on the ground that a wife may not give evidence against her husband. The Prosecutor said he wanted to prove the prisoner's marriage with the woman. The Court would not allow her to be sworn.

Harry Powell was then called. He lives on Pine street, and remembered hearing of Lizzie Peak being killed; he was with Ivins Rossel on Pine street when he picked up the knife which has since been shown belongs to Joseph Peak; it was turned over to Frank Bryan. The knife was shown to him and identified. Ivins Rossell, who found the knife, testifed to that effect. The knife was found in Trinity graveyard, about twenty feet from the sidewalk. The Court convened on Thursday morning with the usual large attendance. Warner appeared in his usual health, but there was no expression of happiness upon his face. His mother, brothers and sisters were all present when Court opened.

Dr. William P. Melcher, of Mount Holly, was the first witness called.
He made a post-mortem examination of the body of Lizzie Peak, being assisted by Dr. R. H. Parsons. He first examined the body for external marks of violence but found none; he found the neck punctured by a stab wound one inch in length, penetrating to a depth of two inches; the large muscle of the neck was cut through and the left jugular completely severed and the left sub-clavian artery nearly severed; the chest was filled with clotted blood; the brain was examined but found no evidence of disease; the chest, heart, stomach, liver, kidney and spleen all examined and found in normal condition and healthy; the cause of the girl's death was internal hemorrhages, severing the jugular and sub-clavian artery; the wound was evidently made with a sharp pointed instrument; upon being shown the carving knife, the doctor said the wound could have been made with such a knife; a person could not live much longer than a minute after receiving such a wound.
The Court here interrupted and wanted to know if there was to be any attempt to show that the girl died from other cause than the knife wound. If not, it was not necessary for the doctor to give any further details.
The defense said they did not intend to set up any other cause of death.
Dr. R. H. Parsons, of Mount Holly, was then sworn.
He assisted in the post-mortem examination of the body of Lizzie Peak; he was also called to the house of Joseph F. Bryan on Pine street, on the night of the murder, where the body of Lizzie Peak was taken after she was wounded; he arrived there before half-past one in the morning; he found the girl dead; he then described the result of the post-mortem in about the same language as Dr. Melcher. Daniel A. Sweeney was called and said he was a resident of Mount Holly, living about one hundred yards from the sawmill bridge on Pine street from church street shortly after midnight of September 17th, when he heard screams of "Oh, oh, oh!" he hurried home, left his violin and started upon a run out Pine street, thinking some of the neighbors had been hurt; just about the graveyard he met a man who was coming along at a brisk-rate; witness hailed him and asked what was the matter up the street; he replied "Are you with or agin us ?" I called to him again and he came across to me under the electric light; he then said the Peak girls were going out home when some one jumped from behind a bush and stabbed one of them; he also said he had been stabbed twice; he seemed very much excited and did not talk in a rational or connected manner; he did not walk as though there was anything the matter with him; he walked along with witness from Shreve street to his home, and was talking about a girl he had been going with for four years; when he left witness he said he was hurt and was going home to his mother.

John L. Severns, a police officer of Mount Holly, being sworn, said he lived on Shreve street on the 17th of September; he met Wesley Warner that night while on his rounds at the corner of Main and Ridgway streets; recognized him as he passed under an electric light; Warner was running at the time; it was then about 12.30.
Charles Durand, living on Water street, Mt. Holly, was the next witness. He said:
" I know Wesley Warner very well; became acquainted with him in Brooklyn; met him on the first day of the Mount Holly Fair last September, and he asked me to get him a job in the shoe factory; did not see him the next day; the next day, Wednesday, I met him at the corner of Main and Water streets and told him I could not get him a job; he had not been drinking; I did not see him on Thursday; on Friday morning I met him at the same place; he said he had a fight with four or five fellows on the Fair grounds the day before; he said he got into the fight because a woman had played him dirty, and he was going to kill her, and he would get square with the fellows who had hammered him; he was drunk. We then went around to Vansciver's hotel, where Warner purchased a half-pint of whisky, but did not pay for it; we went out and took a drink; I did not see him again until about 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, when I was aroused by my wife who said there was some one at the door; I went to the window, when Warner asked me to come down; my wife said to him, "you ought to go away about your business and not come here at this time and take my husband away to get drunk"; he then said that he had something to tell me he did not want any one to hear; I told him to speak low and no one would hear; he then said, "I have killed Lizzie Peak, and left her lying in the road";
I did not believe his story and told him to go to Frank Powell's and stay for the night, and I would talk to him in the morning; he then walked off. He acted strangely; I had never seen him that way before; I have seen him drunk, but never saw him stagger; the first thing he said to me after calling me up was that he had been stabbed; afterwards he said he had stabbed Lizzie Peak and guessed she was dead.

Judge Garrison at this point said he had a statement to make for the benefit of counsel. On Wednesday the jury in taking exercise had gone over a portion of the territory where the murder occurred. The Court had not ordered any such view and the observations taken by the jury were of a casual nature, and they were entirely innocent of any purpose to injure the defendant's interests. It was by the merest accident that they happened to walk that way. It was important that counsel for the defense should, (sic.) be acquainted with this matter, because if they think the offense has been prejudicial to their case it would be good ground for a new trial. If they would waive their privilege in this matter and agree not to consider it further in connection with the verdict, the case would go on, otherwise proceedings would cease at once, and the jury be discharged. A new jury would be selected from the present panel, and the case begun over again on Tuesday next.

Defendant counsel, together with the defendant and all the members of his family, retired to the Court's private room for consultation as to what course they should pursue. After considering the matter for a short time, Mr. Hendrickson, of counsel for the defendant, said after a talk with the defendant's family, that they believed the jury acted in good faith and had no intention of doing the defendant any injury, and that the defendant had decided to waive his privilege in the matter provided it could be shown to him by one of the officers who was with them, what was the nature of the view and what conversation took place while at the scene.

John Applegate, one of the constables in charge of the jury, was sworn. He said:
We went out there after court adjourned for the afternoon on Wednesday; we went first out on Pine street; stopped at Relief Engine house and the bicycle railway; we then went out Pine street and on out the South Pemberton road as far as the little bush were Warner lay in wait for Lizzie Peak the night he killed her; I could not say who requested that they be taken out that way; they examined the spot where the scene was enacted; there were no conversations except among themselves.

Samuel B. Hallings, the other officer in charge of the jury was sworn, and said the foreman of the jury, R. Champion Ballinger, requested that they be taken to the scene of the murder; the foreman and myself walked about ten yards beyond the bush on the South Pemberton road and then turned and came back. There was no conversation between us.
Counsel for defendant then waived any objection to the view, and Wesley Warner also on request of the Court arose and waived any objection.

Charles McDonald, sworn, said he lived on Water street in September last; he was awakened between 12 and 1 o'clock on the Sunday morning of the murder by a knock at the door; he went to the window and saw a man standing on the step; he said "Frank come down, I have something to tell you." I told him he might tell me some other time; and told him he was not at Frank Powell's house, it was four doors below; I could see his face very distinctly as the electric light shone directly upon him; he went out and counted the houses aloud, until he reached the fourth door where he went in; he did not seem drunk; he talked very rational and I could not see that anything was the matter with him. He recognized the man as the prisoner at the bar.

Mrs. Frank Powell was called next. She said:
I live on Water street; Wesley Warner is my brother-in-law; he came to my house between 1 and 2 o'clock the Sunday morning of the murder and I let him in; we went into the kitchen; I told him my husband was in bed, and he told me to tell him to come down; "Have you got any rum ?" he called down stairs, "Yes, plenty of it," Wesley replied; he began to talk about Lizzie Peak, and said he had got into a hell of a racket on the south Pemberton road; he also said he had been stabbed, and showed us the place, when he said, "I've killed Lizzie Peak;" I told him he would have his neck stretched, he replied, "I don't care a damn"; he staid(sic.) all night, sleeping on a settee on the first floor; he had a bottle of rum with him; he answered all the questions I asked him, and I had no trouble to understand him; he married my first husband's sister, and she is now in the court room; he had four children by her.

Frank Powell, husband of the previous witness, substantiated the story told by his wife in all important particulars.

Frank Gibbs was with Warner after he had left his sister-in-law's house Sunday morning, and was with him while he was trying to hire a rig to go to Burlington; they went over on Washington street, and witness met Charles Matlack, who asked him if he had heard of the murder; witness said he had not heard of it; Matlack then said "who is that with you, Wesley Warner ?" witness replied in the affirmative: Warner may have been drinking, but he was not tight and walked all right; it was about twenty minutes past 7 in the morning when he first met Warner; he left Warner at the corner of Washington and King streets; Warner started off toward Water street. George Cronk met Warner Sunday morning near the matting factory; he asked me if I could get him some whisky; I told him I could not; he then said three or four men had bounced him, and showed me where his shirt was torn; he then said, "I've killed a woman," but did not say who it was; he seemed nervous and excited, but seemed to talk rational.

Harry Meyers was called next. He said:
I work for T. Harry Bowker at his livery stable; Sunday morning Wesley Warner and Frank Gibbs came to the stable; Warner said he wanted a rig to go to Burlington; he acted the same as any other man; that was about 6.30 o'clock in the morning; I did not let him have a horse because I did not know him; they both appeared to be sober.

T. Harry Bowker said he was proprietor of a livery stable in Mount Holly; Wesley Warner came to my house about quarter of 7 Sunday morning; I was in bed, but came down stairs; Warner said he wanted to hire a horse to go to Burlington; I told him my horses were all out except one; he then said I might let Gibbs drive him over; I refused, but said I would take him over myself at half past 8; he said he wanted to get there; he seemed sober and acted all right; I have known Warner ten or twelve years, and recognized him when he came to the house; he looked badly battered up, had a black eye and a skinned nose.

Frank Everham, an employe(sic.) at Bowker's livery stable, remembered the Sunday when Warner came to the stable with Frank Gibbs and wanted to hire a horse; he seemed to be perfectly sober.

George W. Bowker, father of T. Harry Bowker, remembered being at home when Warner called at the house to see his son about hiring a horse on Sunday morning; he seemed to be perfectly sober.

Israel Sharp, being sworn said he was coming down from the sand hill, on Sunday morning, September 18, about half past eight, and when at the corner of the carpet mill, heard some one call Jerry Still's name over on Matlack's corner, but could not tell who called him.

Jeremiah H. Still was sworn and said he has known Wesley Warner a good many years; he was coming down the sand hill on Sunday morning when he saw Warner and Frank Gibbs standing on Matlack's corner; Warner called to him to come over; he said he wanted to get a rig to go to Burlington to see his mother; he said they were looking for him and told witness he had killed Lizzie Peak; he said he did it with a butcher knife and the blood was flowing when he left her.

Samuel Wimley told of a conversation he had with Warner after the murder. Warner said he had killed Lizzie Peak, but that he had thought a good deal of her; he told him there were plenty of other women besides her and if he had killed her he had better go and give himself up; he said he would like to go to Burlington and see his mother first; that she had been a good mother to him; he went into the house with witness and took a drink of whisky; this was about 6 o'clock in the morning; the Thursday before the murder Warner was paralyzed drunk, and had been drinking all along; in the fight on the Fair grounds, witness saw a man kicking Warner and he took charge of him and had him cleaned up; he was pretty well scarred up; the next day, Friday, Warner was pretty drunk; he did not see him again until Sunday morning when he came to the house; he was then under the influence of liquor and seemed nervous and downhearted; when witness told him the best thing to do was to give himself up, he went out and started down Water street; he said he killed her because he thought so much of her and couldn't help it, because she had played him dirty.

Walter Sapp, hostler at Vansciver's hotel, said Warner came to the stable on Sunday morning September 18, at twenty-five minutes past six; he wanted a horse to go to Burlington, but witness did not accomodate him because he had no one to bring the horse back; Warner had been drinking but acted straight enough.

T. Clifford Keeler said he was present at the autopsy upon the body of Lizzie Peak and had in his possession the clothing taken from her person.

Ollie Broom was then called, and said she was at the Fair on the Thursday before the murder, and saw Lizzie Peak who was with her sister Amanda; they were at the flying swing; I was with her all day; we went from the flying swing to the beer stand; Frank Rodman and George King were with us; Frank Rodman brought out some beer and one glassful was spilled upon Lizzie's dress; some one said Wesley Warner was coming and Lizzie started to run; Warner ran after her; Amanda followed; they soon came back, but Warner did not come back for half an hour; he walked up to one of the fellows and said "You ____ ____ I've got it in for you."
He seemed pretty drunk; I did not see any fight.

On cross-examination witness said Lizzie and Amanda did not drink any of the beer that was brought out; Annie and I drank a glass. Frank Rodman, one of the participants in the fight with Wesley Warner on the fair ground; said he lived in Burlington, and went to the fair on Thursday of fair week; he met Lizzie about noon, and met Ollie Broom and Annie Rossel at the flying swing; Al English, Frank Caven, and George King were along; he purchased eight glasses of beer, and one of them was spilled in Lizzie Peak's lap; Warner soon came up and made a pass at one of the party, but missed him; witness refused to say whether he hit Warner or not, as he did not want to get himself in any trouble; Warner called witness some bad names , and there was a general fight; the fight took place just back of the grand stand; Warner wasn't so drunk but that he knew what he was doing; witness said he was pretty full himself.

Henry I. Budd said he was president of the Burlington County Agricultural Society; he remembered the condition of the weather during fair week; it rained slightly Tuesday morning, but was clear on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. This evidence was given to determine the darkness at night, there being no moon, and whether objects could be distinguished at short distances.

George Kellock said he knew Wesley Warner and was with him at the corner of Main and Washington streets when Warner had a talk with Charles Durand; we went from there to Vansciver's hotel; on the way down Warner said, "I'm going to kill her;" witness said, "Oh, I wouldn't do that, don't be so foolish;" he replied, "I'm going to kill the ------ and then kill myself, I know what I'm talking about;" witness said, "Wes., you're only throwing yourself away"; he replied, "I don't care a d--- if I am, I'm going to kill her and then kill myself;" Warner was pretty full that morning.

T. Clifford Keeler again took the stand produced the waist that was taken from the body of Lizzie Peak when the autopsy was made. There was a hole on the left hand side of the neck, made by the knife, and it had been saturated with blood. Thomas Bozarth saw blood on the grass at the point where Lizzie Peak lay after being stabbed. He dug the sod up and afterward gave it to the Prosecutor.

Robert M. Brown, constable of Mount Holly, said he met Wesley Warner about 8 o'clock Sunday morning, September 18; they spoke and Mr. Brown said, "I've just been looking for you," "what for ?" he asked, "for killing Katie Peak," answered the Constable, "no, it is not so," he answered, "well, you are wanted for killing one of the Peak girls, and you must go along with me;" he finally consented, but said he wanted to telegraph for him and then gave him into the custody of the Sheriff; Warner did not act like a man who had been drinking. Witness also produced the sod with blood on it, which was dug up by Mr. Bozarth; the previous witness. It had blood stains on it; he had no warrant for Warner's arrest, but he went along very quietly to the jail.

Prosecutor Budd went on the stand and said he was present at the Coroner's inquest, when the carving knife was given to him by officer Brown, after which he turned it over to Shippen Wallace to examine the blood stains on it; the Sunday after the inquest he had an interview in the jail with Wesley Warner. The Court after being informed privately of the nature of the evidence thought it was admissible, but not of sufficient importance to be given in opposition to an objection on the part of the defense.

The State rested after offering in evidence the knife and its companion piece, the fork, Lizzie Peak's address in Brooklyn, the piece of sod, the clothing worn by Lizzie the night she was killed, and the waist preserved from the autopsy.

On Friday the defense in the Warner murder trial was opened by Charles K. Chambers, who said that they would show that all the elements of murder in the first degree as defined by the statute were entirely wanting in this case and that he did not lie in wait for his victim. Wesley Warner married his present wife, Ellen Warner, about ten years ago, and up to the time he met Lizzie Peak he was true to his wife and gave her sufficient money for the support of herself and children. It was in 1890 that he met Lizzie, who was then living in Burlington with a man named Otho Bunting. Lizzie became attached to Warner and weaned him away from his family. Lizzie's parents recognized her and Warner as man and wife, and Warner addressed them as "Mom" and "Pop."

They would show that one Fair day Lizzie got very drunk and vomited over her clothing. Warner saw her while in this condition, and in company with other men. He became very drunk and got into a fight upon her account, in which he was badly used up. Hewas so drunk that hackmen would not allow him to ride with them, and his brother had to take care of him. That night he went to Lizzie's house, still very drunk, and stayed all night, getting up the next morning still very much intoxicated. He came down into town, and some of his friends purchased a ticket for him, and he took the train for his home in Burlington, where he remained all night. At home he acted very strangely, and talked in a wild and incoherent manner. He was in a terribly nervous and excited state, and said he must have something to drink. This lasted during all the night.

The next morning, Saturday, he went the rounds of the saloons in Burlington and became so drunk that at noon he was put back in a hack and sent to his home, where there was quite a scene before Warner was quieted. He insisted that he must go to Mount Holly. His mother then hired a conveyance and brought him to Mount Holly. On the way over he acted and talked strangely. In Mount Holly they met Lizzie, but she would not go out home with him. They afterwards met the Peak family on Pine street and Wesley went out home with them. They would show that Warner was not governed, upon that fatal night, by a normal mind. That he was suffering from nervous prostration brought on by excessive drinking. In this condition he left Lizzie's home, with the carving knife in his possession, and started down the lonely road. He heard voices of men and women laughing and talking, and sat down by the roadside to listen. Then it all came upon him suddenly of the manner in which he was being treated and how she had forsaken him for other men. It was more than he could stand, and he rushed upon the party and thrust the knife into Lizzie and killed her.

Wilbur Warner, of Burlington, a brother of the prisoner, was the first witness. He said:
I was at the Mount Holly Fair on Thursday, September 15; I saw Wesley, my brother, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. He was beastly drunk and very hard to manage. We met Lizzie and Amanda, and I asked her to take him home with her, but she refused. The cross-examination by the State went to show that Warner was not so drunk during Fair week as the witness made him out to be. Witness admitted that his brother talked naturally and seemed most of the time to know what he was about.

Albertis Warner was next sworn. He said:
I live in Burlington and am a brother of Wesley Warner: he was very nervous and fidgety on Thursday; I slept with him that night and from the way he went on and talked I thought he was out of his mind.

Mrs. Rebecca Warner, mother of the defendant, was then called, when an affecting scene ensued. She burst into loud sobs and had to be assisted to the witness stand. Wesley was also moved to tears at his mother's grief. She said she had eight children, and Wesley was the oldest; she visited Wesley while he lived with Lizzie Peak in Brooklyn and stayed from Thursday until Sunday night; they were living there as man and wife. On Saturday evening I hired a carriage and brought Wesley to Mount Holly, and on the way over he was shouting at the top of his voice and wanted me to drive faster. At the corner of Main and Water streets he got out of the carriage and walked down to the Arcade Hotel, where he met Lizzie Peak; Lizzie came out and got in the carriage with me; we drove to Vansciver's Hotel, where Wesley again met us; he got into the carriage again; we went to Lizzie's house, but no one was at home, so we started back again and met Mr. and Mrs. Peak near the railroad; I asked them to let Wesley go home with them, as Lizzie wanted to see him and make up with him; they consented, and he got out of the wagon and went with them.

To the surprise of the prosecution the defence then called Katie Peak to the stand. She said she heard Warner say that he "had revenge in Lizzie, and would have it out of her." "The remark was made in the hotel," continued the witness.

Lizzie Warner, a sister of the defendant, was next called. "I saw Wesley at the Fair on Thursday," she said. "He got in a fight and several men attacked him; Wesley was quite drunk that afternoon; early in the day he came and sat in my lap and began crying; he said he was crying because of the death of his sister Renie, who died last July, while he was away from home; at other times when at the table he would discard a knife and fork and eat with his fingers. His muscles would twitch, and he acted like one bereft of reason."

Henry McDonald, Clara Thorne, Eli Lawrence, Rutherford H. Price, Thomas M. Wells, Allman Matthews, John Garwood, F. E. Pfeffer, Frederick Peters, John W. Murphy, Joseph Marlin, Laura Dunlap and George Dunlap all testified to the drunken condition of Warner, and to his strange actions prior to the murder. In rebuttal of the testimony of Frank Gibbs and Jerry Still, two of the State's witnesses, Charles A. Matlack testified that he had no recollection of having said in their presence or the presence of the defendant that Lizzie Warner had been murdered.

Clarence Warner, a brother of the defendant was next sworn. "I am married," he said. "I believe I was married to Amanda Peak, by a Methodist minister in Burlington. We boarded for awhile in Burlington with Otho Bunting, with whom Lizzie Peak was then living. Bunting was to find the rent and fuel, and I was to furnish the food. Lizzie encouraged my brother Wesley's coming to the house.

The Court then took a recess until Tuesday morning. Warner made his appearance in Court on Tuesday morning after his respite of three days with a weary look and somewhat paler than usual. All the jurymen appeared in good health. Both the Peak and Warner families were on hand and occupied their usual places in the audience.

William Sapp, of Mount Holly, was the first witness. He said:
I had a stand on the fair ground, during the fair; I knew Lizzie Peak and her sisters, and saw them on Thursday during the Fair; they sat at the entrance to the beer stand; a man brought them out some beer; one of the girls vomited; could not say which one of them it was; did not see the vomit go upon her dress; I thought they were all drunk. Upon cross-examination witness would not say that it was Lizzie Peak who vomited. He said there were plenty of drunken women on the ground that day.

Charles Lucas was sworn next. He said:
I live at Burlington; last September I attended the Mount Holly Fair; it was on Friday; I saw Wesley Warner there just as I was leaving the grounds, between five and six o'clock; he sat beside me on the train going to Burlington; said he had no ticket or money; he was going if he had to fight; he seemed to act all right; I could see he had been drinking; on Saturday morning I saw him at Atkinson's hotel, in Burlington; he was drunk; his actions were all right, but the bartender refused to sell him anything to drink, saying he was drunk enough; I always knew Warner to be peaceable and quiet and sober; never saw him act ugly when drunk.

Theodore Phillips, of Mount Holly was called next, and said he was acquainted with the prisoner; he was awakened late on Saturday night of Fair week by a knock on the door; he went to the window and saw the prisoner staggering on the step; he wanted a conveyance to go to Burlington; witness said he would take him over if he had any money; he said his mother would pay for it; he wanted to go and see her; the time was somewhere about midnight.

John H. Peak, of Mount Holly, was sworn and said he lived on Water street; he was in the Mill street hotel on Saturday night of the Fair week; it was about half-past; Wesley Warner was there and was pretty full; he was taking a drink as I went in; some one said his mother was outside and wanted to see him; I saw him again about midnight; he was going into the hotel yard; he seemed to be all right.
Dr. R. C. Barrington, of Mount Holly, said:
I have treated many cases of inebriety and have studied many authorities upon the subject; I was called to the jail the Sunday Warner was arrested for the murder to see him; saw no external wounds upon his person; found that he was not as well nourished as at present; was nervous and had the appearance of one who had been drinking steadily; his manner and trembling of the hands were the indications of his nervous condition; they were the effects of long drinking; he seemed very much depressed; I treated him afterwards as he complained of the usual effects of alcohol indigestion and loss of appetite; he spoke of a wound in his side, but I made no examination to find it; he was decidedly emotional, showing grief and sorrow, and was easily affected to tears; the brain is weakened by prolonged drinking; the grey matter of the brain, the supposed seat of intellect is injured; it excites to anger, passion and irritability, but some are more affected than others; ordinarily the powers of perception and control are weakened, and the tendency is to excite a person to deeds of violence; the higher or upper extremities are first affected by long debauch; subjects of alcoholism are frequently victims of delusions and hallucinations; delirium tremens are a frequent result of the sudden cessation of drinking after a long debauch; the commission of some terrible crime by a person under the influence of drink has a tendency to sober the individual; dypsomaniacs and inebriates are more liable to commit crime than others not so afflicted, because they are less able to control themselves.

Upon cross-examination the witness said he did not remember the conversation he had with Warner in the jail, but he talked rationally and answered all questions readily.
John A. Vansciver, proprietor of the Mill street hotel, said he had known Warner ten or twelve years and had employed him at times; he was very quiet and easy to get along with when sober, but when drunk was always ready to raise a spree with any one; he was easily excited; he saw witness during Fair week; on Friday morning of that week he was in the hotel and wanted a drink, but he was refused because he was partly full then; he was there again on Saturday night; he was drunk; between 11 and 12 that night he came in again in a great hurry; he made a few remarks and went out again; he still showed the effects of drinking and was very much excited; he said he had lost all his friends; he wanted a drink and was again refused; witness fixed the time between 11 and 12, because he was about to close up; Warner came in the back room, after the place was shut up and wanted to go out to Burlington; he then said he had been stabbed and wanted to get a doctor; he showed the place on his side; there was a small scratch which could have been made with a pin; he acted as though he didn't know what he was doing; witness told him to either go to bed or get out.

Charles Cliver, bartender at Vansciver's hotel, was called next.
He remembered seeing Warner in the hotel early on Saturday night of Fair week, and he was pretty drunk. He came in again about quarter of twelve and was still very drunk.

Wesley Warner, the prisoner was then called and sworn. He said: I am the defendant in this case; will be 30 years old the 9th day of next June; am a shoemaker by trade, and have worked at it for 15 or 18 years; my father's name was Hezekiah Warner; he had been dead about five years; I am a married man; my wife's name is Ellen Warner; we have four children; they live on the outskirts of Burlington; I went to Brooklyn about the first of April, 1889, and worked there at my trade; visited my family in Burlington about every two weeks; Lizzie Peak came to Brooklyn about two years ago last October; she came with Clarence, my brother and his wife Amanda; I continued to live with her until last September; we got along very good; nobody got along better; I provided the clothing she had on when she came home to the Fair; I was laid off from my work about a year ago; I then went in the tea and coffee business, but about a week before we came home my partner left me and I only had about $5; we arrived at Lizzie's home on the South Pemberton road on the Saturday before the Fair; Sunday I spent in the house playing with the children; I then tried to get work in Kiner's shoe factory and asked Charles Durand to get me a job; on Tuesday I went to the Fair to see if I could get a job and secured work at Eli Lawrence's stand; Wednesday I went to work selling sausage sandwiches, but did not make out very well; I had a few drinks that day, but not enough to show it or interfere with my work; I went out to the Peak home that night; I was very short of money because I had done but little business; after we ate supper that night Lizzie said they were all going to the Fair the next day, but I told her I could not spare her the money to go and was afraid if she went it might create some trouble on account of my wife; I think I asked her on Monday if she would lend me half a dollar but she refused, saying she wanted to buy a pair of shoes; another time I asked her in a joke to lend me a quarter as I wanted to treat her old man; I finally consented to Lizzie going to the Fair on Thursday as long as she was going with her mother, and said if some of them paid her fare in I would give it back to them when they got inside; her little brother came to me at the stand and I gave him half a dollar; after dinner Lizzie came to the stand and I gave her fifty cents; I next saw her at the flying horses; she was with Annie Rossell, of Burlington, and Amanda, and I think there was another girl with them; I asked Lizzie if I could speak to her; and then the party went off together; she soon came over to the stand again and asked me for some money, ripping out an oath at the same time; I then saw that she had been drinking; I had only taken a few drinks myself; when I saw she had been drinking it made me feel so bad I went away from my stand over to Mr. Wells', under the grand stand, where I had one glass of beer; Lizzie and the others were there but I said nothing to them; there was Lizzie and Amanda, Sarah Jane Burr, Annie Rossell, and another girl; they had drinks there, but I did not see them drink; there were some fellows with them, Rodman, Keen and and one or two others; I could see that Lizzie had been drinking;

I went over to Harrington's saloon and got a half-pint of whisky, and drank about half of it; I felt bad because she was in such low company, about as low as she could get; I did not think she would go with such people; I then went back to the beer saloon and had several drinks; I met Hen Fields there, who used to go with her; I said, "there is your nice girl," pointing to her; then I went to Lizzie and told her what I thought of her conduct; that I did not think she would associate with such people, she ought to have more respect for herself and me; just then Frank Rodman came up and struck me in the mouth; I saw officer Thompson coming and walked away; I afterwards went back, and after some words with Rodman I struck him and knocked him down; he called Keen, and they both came at me; then they got me down and kicked and bruised me; Sam Wimley then came and took me away. Just before the fight I drank the balance of the half-pint of whisky; after being washed up I went back and drank some more beer; the next I remember I was on the road toward Peak's house, near a strip of woods; I do not remember what time it was; Mr. Peak let me in; I found Lizzie and Amanda in the bed where Lizzie and I had been sleeping; I went into the room and said to her, "You acted nice on the Fair grounds today, didn't you; you were running with the lowest and dirtiest people you could find; me trying to do a public business on the grounds and you acting that way; I thought you had more respect for me and for your father and mother."

I did not call her any vile names; I meant my remarks for the other girls; the next morning I ate no breakfast, because I felt too bad; I asked Mr. Peak how much I owed him for mine and Lizzie's board; he said I owed him nothing, but I told him we didn't come there to live off of him; they said it was all right; I went to the Fair grounds again on Friday, being still under the influence of liquor, could just about, get around; do not remember going home to Burlington on the train; the first I remember was my brother Bert coming to me in Burlington and taking me home. From this point until arriving in Mount Holly on Saturday night with his mother in a carriage, his mind appears to be a blank.
He remembered none of the circumstances cited by his mother, sister and two brothers. He remembered seeing Lizzie in the sitting room of the lower hotel with two fellows; Lizzie came out and I went over to the Mill street hotel; while there mother drove up and Lizzie was in the carriage; I went out and spoke to her; she said: "You're a pretty looking thing; You had better go out home and I will talk to you in the morning; I won't go home with you;" I then got in the carriage and started for Lizzie's home; when mother and I got there, the Peak's were not at home, so we turned back again and met Mr. and Mrs. Peak on the road; I got out of the wagon and went home with them; I had half pint of whisky with me; I had a talk with Mr. Peak about the way Lizzie had acted on the Fair grounds, and added "you seem to be upholding her in it;" Mr. Peak then told me to go out of the house, and I started, but Mrs. Peak called me back and told me to go to bed; I went into the bed-room and sat on the bed; but afterward came out again; do not remember saying anything then; at this time I had no knife or weapon of any kind; when I finally went out to go home, I remember taking the knife; the reason I took the knife was that I feared I might meet someone who would do just as they had done by me on the Fair grounds; I had no intention of doing harm to any one; I took it to protect myself; I carried it in my hip pocket, handle downward; I had no intention of doing bodily harm to Lizzie Peak; when I left the house, the next I remember was someone shouting; I don't know whether I was lying or sitting down; I soon saw several people but did not know who they were excepting Lizzie, who was ahead, walking with a strange man;

"I cannot express my feelings as they were at that moment, I lost all control of myself;" Lizzie struck me on the left side and I struck at her, but I don't know whether I hit her or not; then two persons grabbed me; when I struck at her I had no intention of harming her; "I wanted to make a lady of her." After I struck Lizzie the next I saw of her, she was lying on the roadside; I think I heard Amanda scream, "Wes Warner, let go of me or I'll knock you down;" they were all around me in a bunch; I remember then starting towards Mount Holly and seeing Lizzie lying on the ground; I then thought I had done something; I do not remember throwing the knife away; I do not think I saw anyone as I came down Pine street; I might have met Daniel Sweeney, but cannot recall it; later I remember going into Vansciver's hotel and telling him I had been cut; and afterwards returning and asking for a conveyance to Burlington; after that I think I came up to Mr. Wimley's and knocked at the door, but no one came; also have a slight recollection of being at Phillips' livery; some things have come back to me since the occurrences I did not remember at the time; do not remember telling Mr. Bryan on Water street that my name was Jones and that I was going for a doctor, nor do I remember going out Main street towards Burlington on a run; I remember sitting on Charles Durand's step and talking with him, telling him I was stabbed and added "I think I've killed Lizzie;" I did not know then that she was dead; next remember talking to Mrs. Frank Powell. Here he seemed to ahve an excellent recollection of all that transpired, and told the story of his experience there just about as Mrs. Powell told it, except that he did not remember replying that he didn't care a damn in replying to her remark that he would get his neck stretched if he had killed Lizzie. "I never felt that way toward Lizzie. I felt sorry for what I had done, and if I could have seen her the day she was buried I would have given my life for her." He also remembered meeting George Cronk and Frank Gibbs; of going to Vansciver's and from there to T. Harry Bowker's livery and also to his house; of going to the corner of Washington street and Madison avenue, but could not recall any conversation he had with any one; it was there he had first learned that Lizzie was dead; he then went down King street; heard a man say that Constable Brown was looking for a man named Warner; I then started towards his house to give myself up; I soon met him and he took charge of me; when I was talking to Sam Wimley and told him I guessed I had killed Lizzie I said I couldn't help it; I felt very bad then; when I sat down by the roadside before Lizzie and the rest of them came up I had no intention of doing harm to Lizzie or anyone else; I do not know why I sat down there. I remember meeting Katie Peak in at the Washington house on Friday of Fair week and complained to her of the way Lizzie had been treating me; she said "Never mind, Wes, she hasn't treated you right; when you go back to Brookyn you can take me with you." I did not tell her I had revenge in Lizzie and would have revenge out of her. At the opening of the afternoon session the prisoner said he never remembered telling Lizzie he would get even with her some day for treating him the way she had; he remembered telling Mr. Peak that Lizzie was not strong and could not earn her living and said "we will see who lives the longest, her or me;" I meant by that she was in poor health; she had been sick three times while with me--inward trouble. I remember Rev. Mr. Pierce brought me some flowers taken from Lizzie's coffin. The clothes he had on the night of the murder were then produced; there were cuts in the shirt, vest, and coat. He then made bare his side and showed where he had been cut or scratched and which he referred to several times after the murder in the presence of witnesses who have previously testified. Cross-examination by Prosecutor Budd: I met Charles Durand on the Monday of Fair week and asked him to get me a job; I won't be sure I saw him the next day about it, but I think it was; when I told Lizzie on Wednesday night that it might make trouble with my wife if she went to the Fair the next day; I meant that I didn't want the public to talk about our living together; I was not ashamed of our relations to each other; everybody knew it, but her being at the Fair woudl bring it up afresh; I did not object the next morning to her going to the Fair, except that I had not the money to spare to pay her fare; on the Fair grounds I gave her money several times and once when she asked for it she ripped out an oath; I could see plainly that she had been drinking; it worried me so I could not wait upon people and left the stand.

Under a rigid cross-examination witness could remember nothing positive. It was remarkable when instance after instance was brought to his attention by the Proscecutor, he would have some faint recollection of the matter, but could not recite any conversations he had with any one. This was the case up to the time he stabbed Lizzie, and also the next morning after when he was seeking a place to sleep, and afterward when he endeavored to hire a conveyance to get out of town. With surprising coolness and nerve the prisoner took the knife with which he had committed the deed, and thrust it handle down in his hip pocket, and then pulled it out with the blade pointed downward, showing how he used it upon Lizzie Peak. He flatly contradicted much of the talk previous witnesses claimed to have had with him. Both sides then rested. Counsel asked for four hours a side for argument, but the Court thought that as the only question to be considered was the prisoner's mental condition at the time the act was committed, the two sessions to-day (Wednesday) of five hours was ample for the argument.

The jury will retire for deliberation this afternoon. "

A week later, on Jan 11th, this detailed account followed:
"THE MIRROR's report of the trial of Wesley Warner for the murder of Lizzie Peak, closed last week with evidence of the last witness for the defense. On Wednesday the argument began and lasted the entire day. Prosecutor Budd opened for the State. He said the case about closing was a peculiar and unusual one in some particulars, it being admitted that a murder was committed and that Wesley Warner was perpetrator of the deed. Hence the degree of the crime and the defendant's moral and mental responsibility were the only points to be considered. He then cited many authorities to show that voluntary intoxication does not exculpate a person who has committed crime(sic.). If this were so, all murderers would drink to escape punishment. Warner had formed the intention to kill Lizzie Peak when he was perfectly sober, and made public announcement of the fact by dire threats. He was in full possession of his faculties when he committed the deed and not crazed by drink as the defense had tried to show. He also used a deadly weapon whereby malice is presumed. He had a motive for the deed which caused him to seek revenge by a specific plan to murder. Mr. Budd insisted that Wesley Warner had convicted himself of murder in the first degree. It was not his purpose to hound the defendant to the gallows, but rather to uphold the dignity of the State and see that just punishment was meted out to a self-confessed murderer.

Charles K. Chambers opened for the defense and made an earnest, eloquent and able plea in the prisoner's behalf. He urged the jury to weigh well the evidence they had heard and that all reasonable doubts that might arise must be resolved in favor of the defendant. He laid much stress upon the fact that Warner for several days prior to the murder had been drinking heavily, and his prolonged debauch, coupled with Lizzie's actions toward him, had caused him to become unbalanced mentally, and irresponsible for his acts. He was upon the verge of delirium tremens and driven to madness by jealousy when he committed the deed, and could not have realized the enormity of the crime. He said it would have been an easy matter for Warner to have made his escape if he had so desired or had realized that he had committed a murder, but he did not do so, showing that he could not have formed any premeditated design to commit a murder. The threats he made against Lizzie Peak were the idle words of a drunken man and meaningless. He loved Lizzie Peak as he had never loved any other woman. He saw her drunk and in bad company upon the Fair grounds and it made him feel so badly he began drinking heavily himself and kept it up until he became frenzied and took her life, not knowing what he was doing. Plenty of witnesses had testified to his intoxication for several days before and up to the very evening of the tragedy. He wanted to get out of the carriage that night as he was coming from Burlington with his mother and end his life by throwing himself in front of a passing train. He went to Lizzie's home that night still drunk and in his delirium left the house after her parents had retired and took the knife along for self-protection, imagining he would be attacked along the road. He laid down by the roadside in a drunken stupor and not to await his victim. It was only when she appeared before him accompanied by another man that he was aroused to sudden passion and jealousy and struck the fatal blow. There was no premeditation. Mr. Chambers insisted that there was nothing in the evidence which he had so carefully gone over to show that it was a wilful and deliberately planned murder and asked for a verdict of murder in the second degree.

Charles E. Hendrickson followed his colleague for the defense, and at the outset insisted that Warner was not guilty of a higher crime than murder in the second degree. He continued his argument mainly in the same line as his predecessor and complimented Mr. Chambers highly upon the able and eloquent manner in which he had presented the facts in the case to the jury. He admitted that intoxication was not an excuse for crime but it may be of such a nature as to lessen the degree of the crime, this view having the approval of all high authorities on criminal law. This was not a carefully planned, wilful and deliberate murder, as it was committed too openly and in the presence of too many witnesses. He sat down by the roadside in the open view of passers-by. He struck the blow wildly with no set purpose. It was by the merest accident it struck a vital spot. It was not repeated. Furthermore he had not had sufficient provocation to commit so great a crime. He was drunk, too drunk to realize what he was doing. He remained in Mount Holly after the crime when he might have made his escape. In closing he urged the jury to be governed solely by the evidence they had heard, and not by public clamor.

Prosecutor Budd made the closing argument. He said there was nothing to show that Warner was a rum-crazed fiend when he killed Lizzie Peak. Instead he showed himself to be a cool, calculating man, who had formed a specific plan to commit the murder and fortified himself with rum to enable him to carry out his plan. He had seen her on the Fair grounds in company with other men and his jealousy was aroused. He then began to threaten her. On Friday morning he said "I'm going to kill her, she's played me dirty." The same day he told her sister Katie "I've got revenge in her and I'll have revenge out of her," adding, "And I'll never set my foot in her g--d d--d door again." Lizzie had told him she wanted nothing more to do with him and hence he was very angry. The very night he killed her he said to her father in a conversation, "Well, you'll see who lives the longest, me or her." He knew what he meant by that. His specific plan to kill her was fully perfected and a few hours later its consumation was witnessed. The statement that he was in a beastly state of intoxication upon that fatal night is not substantiated in any particular. He remained at his mother's home in Burlington during the day. In the afternoon he took a walk with two little brothers and acted rationally. At night he came over to Mount Holly in a carriage with his mother; got out at the corner of Main and Water streets and walked to the Arcade hotel where he met Lizzie. During this time he showed no signs of delirium. He asked permission to speak to her but she refused. He walked to Vansciver's hotel when he met her again. She was in the carriage with his mother. He was still acting as a sober man. He had in his pocket a half-pint bottle, half-full of whisky, and if he was craving for rum and nearly crazy for drink he might have helped himself. Lizzie got out of the carriage and he got in and meeting Mr. and Mrs. Peak on Pine street, went home with them. He offered Mr. Peak a drink out of his bottle but he declined. Warner then took a short one. Later at his suggestion, Mr. and Mrs. Peak went to bed. This was a necessary precaution for him to take to carry out his pre-arranged plan. When they were out of sight he secured the carving knife from under the dishes where Mrs. Peak had hidden it, and went out upon the lonely road, and at a favorable spot lay in wait for the girl, upon whom he had determined to wreak his jealous revenge. All this showed cool calculations and the working of an alert mind. He arose slowly as the happy trio of sisters and their young gentleman friends approached him. He wanted to make sure of picking out the right one, and although Lizzie was dressed partly in her sister's outer clothing and hat, he recognized her and plunged the knife into her breast. "Ah, Wesley Warner!" continued the Prosecutor, as he turned to the prisoner, "if you had remained true to your plighted troth with Ellen Warner, whom you so shamefully deserted, and who has sat there through the trial, still your friend, you would not be here today, with your life trembling in the balance." His first thought after the fatal plunge with the knife is flight. He starts upon a run, and to the question of Joseph F. Bryan, the first man he meets, who asks, "what's the matter up there ?" he says, "They're fighting me." He still carries the bloody knife in his hand, and hopes to reach the stream on Pine street and drop it in unobserved. He hears footsteps, and flinging the knife over into the graveyard, hurries on. He is hailed by Daniel Sweeney, whom he recognizes, and halts and talks with him. He says some one else attacked the Peak girls, and that he had been stabbed. He then seeks shelter for the night among friends on Water street. He goes to the home of his sister-in-law, Mrs. Frank Powell, and tells her he has killed Lizzie Peak. "You'll get your neck stretched for it," she said. "I don't care a d--n if I do," he replied, showing that remorse was not yet gnawing at his conscience for the awful crime he had committed. He then produced the whisky bottle and took the first drink since Lizzie's home. Surely he could not have the rum-crazed fiend the defense has described to him to be upon this fatal night. He had drank scarcely any liquor and was acting with rare caution and a clear mind. When told by Jerry Still on Sunday morning that Lizzie was dead he said, "all right," and walked off. Shortly afterwards he was arrested by officer Brown and denied the crime.
Since then his memory has failed in many particulars. He remembered going out to Lizzie's home that night, but nothing of what he said to her parents. He also remembered taking the knife, and with a coolness that caused a shudder to run through all who witnessed the exhibition, showed the jury how he put it in his pocket and how he pulled it out when he made the fatal thrust at Lizzie Peak. He remembers waking out of a stupor on the roadside, but does not remember throwing the knife away. Wesley Warner has convicted himself of murder in the first degree out of his own mouth. Jealousy, and not rum, caused him to commit the crime. Judge Garrison then charged the jury as follows: Gentlemen of the Jury:--The prisoner at the bar stands charged with the crime of murder. Your verdict, under the law of this state, will not only settle the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but will, if you shall find him guilty, also designate whether he is guilty of murder of the first degree or of murder of the second degree. What constitutes murder and what determines the degree of murder are matters of law. The law applicable to this indictment is contained in one of the statutes of this state, which I will read. "If any person in committing any unlawful act against the peace of this state, of which the probable consequences may be bloodshed, shall kill another, then such person so killing, on conviction, shall be adjudged to be guilty of murder." You will be observe that a person is guilty of murder if they commit an unlawful act, the probable consequence of which is shedding blood. The section of the statute which determines the degrees of murder, in so far as it is applicable to this indictment, I will also read. "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, shall be deemed murder of the first degree." Now, taking these statutes together, it is your duty to determine whether Wesley Warner, when he stabbed Lizzie Peak, did an unlawful act against the peace of the state, whether the probable consequence of that act would be bloodshed, whether the prisoner was mentally capable of knowing that the probable consequence of that act would be bloodshed, whether the prisoner was mentally capable of knowing that the probable consequence of stabbing Lizzie Peak with the knife that he held would be to kill her, and whether at the time that he inflicted this wound on her he was mentally capable of forming and had formed a wilful, deliberate and premeditated purpose to do the act, knowing that the probable consequence of so doing would be to kill her. You will have no difficulty in deciding whether the prisoner's blow was a lawless one, the probable consequence of which would be bloodshed and might be death. Now, whether the defendant was capable of foreseeing the probable consequences of his act and and of conceiving the purpose that he then or subsequently executed is a question to be settled by you upon the testimony. For this purpose you will take into consideration all of the proofs that you have permitted to be brought before you. You will consider and give weight to all that has been testified to with respect to the defendant, his conduct, his behavior, his passions, his habits, his condition, physical and mental, his expressions and conversation both before and after the commission of the deed, the presence or abscence of adequate motive or occasion, the nature of the instrument of death, the mode of its procurement, the manner of its employment on the body of the girl, and the behavior of the defendant at the time and afterward. These and all other proofs you are to consider in all of their aspects, whether they make for the defendant or against him, and as one of the circumstances, the one chiefly dwelt upon by the defence, you are to consider and give due weight to all of the testimony respecting the taking by the defendant of intoxicating liquor, and all of the evidence as to its effect upon his moral nature and upon his mental faculties. The object of all this is investigation is the ascertainment by you of the presence or absence of a purpose or design on the part of the prisoner at the bar of the nature described in the statute.
I refer now to the statute which describes the various degrees of murder, the first degree being that which was read to to you. Now, the words used in that statute, the words being "wilful, deliberate and premeditated," are interpreted judicially and applied in a somewhat different sense from that in which they are ordinarily used. Thus the word "wilful" does not mean head-strong or perverse, but it means intentional, what a man wills to do. So that the statute in saying that the killing must be wilful means that it must have been willed, that is, purposed, intended, not the result of accident or of mere casualty. "Deliberate" in the statute indicates a purpose that has been formed in a state of mind capable of conception. It does not mean that it had been canvassed pro and con for any particular length of time. And the word "premeditated" describes a design that had been formed beforehand; not necessarily that it had been brooded over or had been held for a long time under advisement. In other words, if the fatal act of killing was in furtherance of the design to kill, fully conceived, for no matter how short a time before its intentional execution, then it is murder of the first degree. I say if the fatal act was in furtherance of a design to kill, which design was fully conceived, for no matter how short a time before its intentional execution, it is murder of the first degree under the law as I construe it and lay it down to you. Now, applying this general interpretation to the duty which you have immediately in hand, if you find that Wesley Warner was mentally capable of conceiving a design to take the life of the woman who had been living as his mistress, and that he did conceive such a design, and if you are satisfied that in pursuance of a design thus conceived he purposely inflicted the fatal blow, then he was guilty of murder in the first degree. Whereas, if you find that he was incapable from the condition of his mind of conceiving such a purpose, and acted in striking the fatal blow not from design but from sudden or motiveless passion, or from uncontrollable(,) because drunken(,) violence, then he is not guilty of murder of the first degree but guilty of murder of the second degree. Now, the circumstance which has been introduced, which necessarily is introduced in this case both by the State and by the defendant, is the drinking or drunkenness, according as you view the testimony of the defendant, previous to and at the time of his homicide. The fact that a man is drunk and the question as to the extent of that drunkenness is a question for the jury in this case upon this one question of the mental condition of the defendant. Drunkenness does not constitute a bar to guilt. A man may be held guilty of murder and murder in the first degree, notwithstanding the fact that it may be that he at various times covered by the testimony in the case, or even at the time of the culmination of a preconceived design, might be in a condition of drunkenness. It is no such bar as that. It is just simply a fact to be given just the weight that it deserves in the orderly opinion of the jury. We all know from common experience that there is such a thing as a condition of drunkenness in which an intelligent purpose cannot be formed, or if formed cannot be executed. We all know, on the other hand, that there are conditions resulting from drink which will not prevent either a good or wicked purpose, or if that purpose has been or is formed, will not prevent either a good or wicked purpose, or if that purpose has been or is formed, will not prevent the furtherance and the completion or execution of it. It is for you to determine in this case, as men of common sense, men acquainted with the meaning of the testimony you have heard whether there existed in this case a condition of mind , or mental disturbance or whatever other name in(sic.,) may be called by, in(sic.) this defendant, such that he either was unable to form or in point of fact did not form the design to commit murder which is an essential part of murder of the first degree. The rule of law as I understand it and charge it to you, in respect to the effect of drunkenness on a trial of this character, is this, that this defendant is on trial for a crime of which premeditation of the kind that I have described to you is an essential element. The fact that the accused was drunk or was in drink therefore may and should be taken into consideration by the jury for the purpose of determining whether or not there was premeditation. A man may be so drunk as to be incapable of forming the deliberate intent to murder, which is necessary to the crime of murder of the first degree. On the other hand, a man may be drunk and yet may have formed with deliberation and have executed a premeditated murder of the first degree. Where drunkenness exists the jury must consider it in connection with all the other testimony, to see whether the purpose to kill was or was not conceived and executed with the wilfullness and design contemplated by the statute, or whether if the design was formed it was formed in passion merely and inebriety without the conception of murder or purpose to kill or to take the human life. With the facts and testimony necessary to be used by you in determining this question I have nothing whatsoever to say. Whatever testimony has been admitted has been admitted because in the opinion of the Court it was lawful and had a bearing upon this case. The weight you shall give to the witnesses must be determined by the ordinary rules by which you judge human accuracy and credibility. You are to consider, as in any other case, if there is a divergance of statement, who is most likely to be telling the truth. No certain rules can be laid down in respect to that. This question of drunkenness, which is the main stress of the defense, is one by which is to be taken into fair consideration by you in determining any question where its presence is found, according to the degree that you find it, and if a certain statement which might be a threat is made under conditions which you find to have been the result of drink you are to consider how far you shall give weight to the language thus used. Obviously the same weight will not be given to language which we believe to be merely drunken muttering that we would give to the language of a perverse and wicked heart, even though the perversity was accompanied by excessive liquor. In other words, the fact that a man has been drinking does not of itself make what he says either more or less strong, except so far as you shall find either that it was or was not a real expression of sentiment, be it good or bad it may be either true or false. The fact that he is drunk does not make it necessarily false. In the same line, the question whether this defendant was actually lying in wait at the spot where the tragedy occurred, is one which will depend largely upon your conclusion as to his condition with respect to ebriety or inebriety. Obviously the statute by "lying in wait." coupled with the other illustration of giving poison, meant to indicate a condition in whih one with criminal and murderous intent waits for his victim, waits his opportunity. Now, undoubtedly a man may be drunk and may lie in wait. He may be drunk and yet may wait an opportunity to carry out a design which he had either formed before he became so drunk or which he was not so drunk that he might lie on the ground, stupid, not "knowing why he was there. The mere fact of his lying on the ground would not be "lying in wait" unless his presence there in that position was from a desire to seek an opportunity to put in operation a lawless and wicked purpose. All through the weighing of the evidence in a case of this character you are to bear in mind the attitude which society represented by its courts holds toward every person who is accused of crime. That is there are no presumptions against them. The law does not accuse any man and then say, "We will not presume you to be guilty." On the contrary, a man is never helt to be in(sic.) any more guilty than the facts actually prove him to be in the opinion of the jury, and if there be in regard to any fact any condition of doubt in the mind of a juror of that character which has been "described as a reasonable doubt, if he cannot accept the fact without feeling that he yet has a doubt which makes him desire not to accept it as the basis of an important conclusion, that doubt should be resolved always in favor of the defendant. The idea of what constitutes a reasonable doubt is one that we all act upon a thousand times a day. We all have doubts which are vague and possible, mere doubts that we give very little weight to. Yet in regard to almost every transaction we have doubts of what we call a reasonable character, so we will not act while that doubt is in our minds. A reasonable doubt in the legal sense is this, as I understand it, that belief exists beyond a reasonable doubt when there is that condition of mind in which after a consideration and comparison of all the evidence of the juror feels an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the correctness of the conclusion he has reached. That is the idea of reasonable doubt. When a juror has reached a conclusion in his mind, in an honest endeavor under his obligation to do his duty, and then looks back and discovers no doubt in his own mind but that he has to a moral certainty beyond any doubt that he ought to allow to interfere with the due performance of his duty, reached a conclusion of substantial correctness of which he feels no abiding distrust, then he is convinced beyond reasonable doubt. That is the rule of law in respect to the attitude of mind in which the jury is to consider all the evidence and in regard to the presumption of innocence which will exist until the defendant's trial is over. The defendant's request to charge I will dispose of by charging as follows: "That to convict the defendant of murder of the first degree, it must be proved to the satisfactory of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that there was in the mind of the defendant, at the time of striking the fatal blow, a specific intention to take the life of the deceased and that he must have premeditated the act with that intention beforehand." Also "That if the defendant's intent was merely to scare or do so great bodily harm, in striking the blow he did, and death ensued therefrom, then he would be guilty of murder in the second degree only." Third. That if the defendant was at the time in such a state of intoxication that his mind was incapable of premeditating the fatal blow with the intent to take life, and his reason was deprived of the power to think and weigh the nature of the act committed, and the consequence of his act, then the offence committed cannot be more than murder in the second degree." I decline to charge that he must have weighed the consequences of his act. If he intended to kill, whether he fully took into consideration all of the possible consequences I do not think is material. I have charged upon the fourth request, which I will read, "That though the jury should find that, at the time the fatal blow was struck, the defendant was not so drunk as to be incapable of forming the premeditated and deliberate intent to kill, yet if the jury is considering the effects of his intoxication, with all the other facts in the case, should find that the purpose to kill the deceased, if any, was formed in passion or jealous rage produced upon his mind excited by liquor, upon suddenly finding the deceased in company with another man on the road, then it would reduce the offence to murder in the second degree and the jury should return the verdict accordingly." I have already charged the jury that they must find that an intent, not merely in a state of passion, but characterized by the statutory requirements, before they can find the defendant guilty of murder, in the first degree, and I refuse to charge otherwise. I am requested to charge "That if the mind of the defendant was at the time so excited by liquor that upon discovering the deceased," with whom he had been living as his wife, in company with another man, that he was aroused to a passion or rage and struck the fatal blow while under its influence, then his offence in killing the deceased cannot be higher than murder in the second degree." I have already covered that in the remarks I have previously made and refuse to charge otherwise. I am requested to charge "That if upon the whole evidence they have a reasonable doubt, whether, at the time of the killing, defendant had as the result of intoxication or its after-effects, sufficient mental capacity to deliberately think upon, and rationally determine to kill the deceased, they cannot find him guilty of murder in the first degree." I have charged that the prisoner must have been able to form and must have formed a design to take life which was not the result of mere sudden passion or intoxication, and I refuse to charge otherwise. I charge as requested "That a homicide caused by a person lying in wait, does not necessarily constitute murder in the first degree, and such lying in wait avails nothing if the person be so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming a deliberate purpose to take life, or, while under the effects of such intoxication, strikes the fatal blow when in a transport of rage, caused by some real or imaginary provocation by the deceased." I am requested to charge that "The fact that a crime may have been contemplated vaguely beforehand, does not make it premeditated, if its execution took place in hot blood or sudden passion." In regard to that, so far as it is applicable to this case, I charge that if the contemplation of the crime was all that occurred, that that is the proper charge, but also that if a purpose has been formed, and as part of the condition of mind brought about by the contemplation of its performance undue use of intoxicating liquors has resulted, so that the prisoner, while maintaining the criminal design, gets himself drunk at the time of its actual commission, does not lower the grade, because there would have been the formation of a design by a mind capable of designing it. The mere fact that he got drunk at the time of the performance would not lessen it to the grade of second degree. Otherwise I refuse the charge. I have already charged, "That declarations of intent and threats do not give rise to presumptions of law as to the guilt of a defendant; that they are mere circumstances, to be proved in connection with others, from which to draw inferences as to the defendant's guilt of the offence charged." Amongst other things his condition of intoxication at the time of making such threats should be considered. The tenth I refuse to charge because I consider it is merely a suggestion to the jury. "That the jury should remember, in connection with evidence of threats that the intention may have been abandoned before execution; that the words may have been misunderstood or misrepresented; that because a man avows an intention or threatens to commit a crime, it does not necessarily follow that such intentions really existed in his mind; the words may have been uttered in a transient fit of anger or through bravado, or may have been merely low and idle expressions of a drunken man." That is not a matter of law. It is a question for the jury to use their judgment in respect to what they shall find to have been the language or threats of this defendant.

Defendant's counsel except generally to the charge of the Court, and specifically to the refusal to charge as requested and the modifications to the requests to charge. The jury retired and remained out all night. On Friday morning they came into court and rendered a verdict of murder in the first degree and upon being polled the result was found to be unanimous. Warner received the verdict coolly, showing no sign of emotion. He walked out of the Court House and to his cell without uttering a word. His counsel made application for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. Judge Garrison asked counsel to send to him at Camden not later than Saturday their grounds for the application, and on Monday he would consider the matter. If he refused he would then pass sentence upon Warner.

Court convened again on Monday morning, Judge Garrison presiding. Warner came into court a few moments before his counsel arrived. He appeared cool and collected, and shook hands heartily with his counsel when they came in and entered into a whispered conversation with them.

Judge Garrison announced that the Court was ready to hear the application of counsel for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted the defendant. Charles K. Chambers then read the following reasons for making the application. 1. The verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence. 2. The verdict was given in disregard of the reasonable doubt under the whole evidence which is guaranteed to every defendant in a criminal case. "In the United States no distinction is now made between felonies and misdemeanors as to granting a new trial. Further than that where the offense is a felony, a new trial is granted the more readily for the reason that the consequences of a refusal are the greater. "It is in numerous cases rather assumed than decided that the question whether a new trial shall be granted or not depends upon the same rules in criminal cases as in civil. And justly, it does to a part of the rules. But we have seen that the burden of proof is in a degree different; and very different is the weight of evidence which in a criminal case, requires the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, and because by the entire spirit of the criminal law the prisoner is under a protection from the Judge, which a party in a civil suit may deem, and it is believed rightly, that new trials should be awarded more freely in criminal cases than in civil, and in criminal the more freely in proportion to the gravity of the punishment. 3. The evidence was not sufficient to justify the jury in finding the defendant guilty of the murder in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. The verdict does injustice to the defendant. "Popular excitement at the time of the trial, in itself, is not a ground for a new trial, unless the jury be swept away by it into an unjust verdict." "On a conviction for murder it was held not good ground for a new trial that there was a great excitement in the public mind at the time of the trial against the accused. But, in a later case, the Court above reversing the decision below, ordered a new trial because the verdict was given under a state of great excitement." 5. The verdict of the jury was contrary to the charge of the Court. 6. There was misconduct of the jury. This consists in the fact that the jury visited the scene of the killing. 7. Misconduct of Sheriff. 8. Newly discovered evidence. Authorities were then quoted in support of the reasons given by Mr. Chambers and Mr. Hendrickson. They claimed to have newly discovered evidence in the shape of expert testimony upon inebriety by Dr. N. Roe Bradner. In Mr. Bradner's opinion, having read carefully the testimony in this trial that Warner, in his mental condition, from long continued inebriety and debauch, was not responsible for his acts when he committed the murder. An affidavit of the prisoner was then read in which he claims that he did not strike Lizzie Peak with felonious intent and malice aforethought, and that the public was prejudiced against him by a malicious and false statement in the newspapers of an attempt to kill his keeper and escape. That the man Ryan who first told the story to the officials was unworthy of belief. Upon the strength of this story, he the deponent was put in a dungeon and shackled. Edgar Norcross, a prisoner at the time of this alleged plot, said he heard Ryan say he would do anything to help Warner escape, but never heard him say anything about Warner making preparation for escape. That Ryan, while confined in the Mercer county jail, assisted one William Seruby, a murderer, to make his escape and had said he would do as much for Warner. C. E. Hendrickson followed in an able argument for the rule. He said Warner must have had great provocation to have committed the murder. The jurors also upon being selected in almost every instance said they had formed an opinion as to the guilt of the prisoner. That the false story of Warner's intention to kill the turnkey and escape, had been detrimental and very damaging to the defendant. Every newspaper in the county had published the story giving sensational details, which had created great prejudice against the prisoner. Ryan, the scamp who told the story was rewarded for his villainy by having sentence upon him suspended upon an indictment for assault and battery, while Warner was placed in a dungeon and chained. Counsel insisted that the verdict was not warranted upon the evidence in the trial. The prejudice created in advance against the prisoner precluded the possibility of his own story being accepted as truth. After Mr. Hendrickson had concluded the Court retired to consider the motion. They soon returned and Judge Garrison said the Court is unanimously of the opinion that the case was fairly and impartially tried before the jury and that there is no ground for a new trial. That the prisoner waived a privilege in reference to the action of the jury did not prejudice the case in any way. As a matter of law, it was for the Chancellor to decide upon a writ of error. That the jury visited the scene of the murder months afterward could not have anything to do with creating prejudice as to the mental capacity or drunken condition of the prisoner. Prosecutor Budd then asked that sentence be passed. Judge Garrison then told the prisoner to stand up and said: "Wesley Warner, the Grand Jury incicted you for the murder of Lizzie Peak, and the jury before whom you were tried have found you guilty of murder in the first degree. In accordance with that verdict it is the sentence of the law and the Court that you be taken hence to prison from whence you came, there to be incarcerated in solitude, and on Wednesday, the 15th day of March, between the hours of 10 o'clock, A. M., and 2 o'clock, P. M., within said prison, or in some enclosure within its walls, you be hanged by the neck until your body is dead." Warner never flinched, and when the judge had finished and ordered him to retire, he picked up his hat and walked out of the court room apparently as unconcerned as any spectator. The Jury selected by the Court to be present at the execution and see that the judgment of the Court is carried out, is composed of the following gentlemen: Evan F. Benners, Moorestown. Richard C. Barrington, M. D., Mount Holly. J. Earl Forsyth, Pemberton. William F. Morgan, Palmyra. William J. Irick, Vincentown. William H. Shipps, M. D., Bordentown. Alfred S. Wills, Rancocas. Stacy B. Taylor, Wrightstown. John H. Croshaw, Springfield. Richard G. Dudley, Mount Laurel. Charles H. Pitman, Woodland. George A. Allinson, Burlington."

Feb 8, 1893:
On Monday afternoon Chancellor McGill granted a writ of error in the case of Wesley Warner who is under sentence of death for the murder of Lizzie Peak. This will permit the case to come before the Supreme Court for reviewal upon the evidence and the exceptions of his counsel. Warner was to have been executed on March 15th if nothing intervened, but the matter will not now come before the Supreme Court earlier than June. The writ of error was applied for some days ago by Warner's counsel, and the argument was based upon Judge Garrison's refusal to charge the Jury as requested: that the jury erred in visiting the place where the crime was committed; that the defendant was not asked by the Court if he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced; that new and important evidence had been discovered. Mr. Chambers, Warner's counsel, conveyed to him yesterday morning the news of a stay of proceedings having been granted, and showed him a newspaper containing the statement. He seemed greatly pleased at the news and brightened up perceptibly. In the afternoon he laid down upon his cot and indulged in a long nap, the first time he has done such a thing since sentence was pronounced upon him. The news seemed to take a great load from his mind. The guard will still remain on duty.

Feb 22 1893:
Rev. John H. Boswell recently preached a sermon upon "Capital Punishment," in which he insisted that in grave and clear cases of murder in the first degree the death penalty should be enforced. A local paper in its last issue took this sermon as subject matter for editorial comment, and it is easy to see by reading between the lines that the object in view was to create public sentiment favorable to the commutation of Wesley Warner's death sentence to imprisonment for twenty years. The sentiments expressed by Rev. Mr. Boswell were humane and just and coincided with popular sentiment; but the deductions made therefrom by the local paper aforesaid were selfish and apparently not wholly disinterested. The case of Wesley Warner has no parallel among the cases cited. There was nothing of a circumstantial nature in the evidence. Five persons witnessed the awful crime and the prisoner out of his own mouth confessed the deed. His plea of irresponsibility owing to "alcoholic trance" was not substantiated by the evidence and none of the witnesses who declared him of sound and reasoning mind at the time of the act were clamoring for his life; in fact many of them were his friends and relatives. It cannot be fairly said that the jurymen were biased in their judgment by popular clamor. Such incendiary and bloodthirsty sentiment does not exist in this enlightened community as in the South where justice is anticipated, hindered and outraged every day in the year. Were Wesley Warner given his liberty he would be in no danger of violence to his person even though he mingled with the people and frequented his accustomed haunts. This is demonstrated in the case of Francis Lingo. He is loathed and shunned as a repulsive object, and there was openly expressed indignation that he should be allowed his freedom. But that is all. He goes among the people unmolested. Wesley Warner's case was neither unique in the annals of crime, nor was it pregnant with mitigating circumstances that should have weight in fixing the punishment lighter than that of death. Moreover the errors that have permitted a stay of the execution were purely of a technical nature, and in the event of a new trial being granted by the Supreme Court will have no bearing whatever upon the acknowledged crime of the prisoner. It seems passing strange to the lay mind that the failure of a judge to ask a prisoner if he had anything to say before sentence was pronounced should be deemed of sufficient importance to warrant a writ of error being allowed, which may result in a new trial with its heavy expenses upon the people. Aside from the prisoner's worthy counsel, whose zeal in any other cause would be commendable, there is no sentiment expressed favorable to the decision of the Chancellor; it is fair to say that the public sentiment is decidedly contrary to the Chancellor's opinion. Statistics show that in the past three years 17,079 known murders were committed; also that 337 known murders were executed by law, while 538 were lynched by mobs. It is hard to say which is the most disgraceful fact, the pitifully small number of persons legally punished or the large number punished without law. Both show that the laws against murder are not duly executed and they also explain why crimes against human life are beoming so increasingly common. There is a criminal laxity in executing the laws that, unless arrested, threatens the stability and welfare of the country. The boast that hanging for murder is played out is substantially true. The boast about the sacredness of human life is foolish and idle talk. Human life is about the cheapest commodity in the country while thousands of known murderers are allowed to go unpunished every year. Wesley Warner's cae is no exception. Now let us view the matter from another standpoint. If Wesley Warner's death sentence is commuted to imprisonment it must be considered that reformation is desired as well as punishment. Arthur McDonald is one of the best known writers upon criminology. His conclusions are very intersting and exhaustive. He says the criminal, as a rule, enters the world handicapped by heredity. That this may not have been the case with Wesley Warner does not obliterate the fact that all of his life brought out by the recent trial for murder, and covering a considerable period, was one of crime. He was shown to have deserted a wife and children--a grave crime. Then his illicit cohabiation with Lizzie Peak, a daily and incessant outrage of the law, and later a felonious assault upon a fellow workman, for which he was imprisoned. Then followed the awful crime of murder. It would seem that he is so constituted that his mental and physical aptitude impelled him toward crime. Would twenty years of penal servitude cure him of this propensity ? Would he not return to crime through sheer desperation, hounded by society, refused honorable employment, thrust away from society, treated as a leper wherever he turned ? Is his criminal tendency a disease ? If so twenty years of confinement with hundreds of other men whose lives have been moulded by the same sinister influences would have a tendency to increase his natural inclination. With this view accepted Wesley Warner's reformation is not so much the object as to save his neck from the hangman's noose. The public will not believe that justice has been done if this should come to pass through the ability of shrewd and persistent lawyers to impress the importance of technical errors upon the higher courts.

On Mar 15, 1893:
Wesley Warner's life begins anew today. He was to have paid the penalty for the murder of Lizzie Peak between the hours of 10 and 2 to-day.

As a postscript to the affair, a few months later Lizzie's sister was married:
Before Justice Clevenger, on Saturday(presumably a reference to May 13, 1893), Geo. Asay, of Burlington, and Katie Peak, sister of Lizzie Peak, who was murdered by Wesley Warner, were united in the holy bonds of matrimony.
and on June 7, 1893:
Judge Garrison has allowed Charles K. Chambers, who defended Wesley Warner in his recent trial for the murder of Lizzie Peak, $600 for his services. Associate counsel C. E. Hendrickson, received one-half of the fee. Their expenses were over $100, leaving them less than $250 each.

But that wasn't really the end! On Jun 14, 1893 the story got more complicated:
The argument for a new trial for Wesley Warner, under sentence of death for the murder of Lizzie Peak, was heard in the murder of Lizzie Peak, was heard in the Supreme Court, last week, before Chief Justice Beasley and Associate Justices Dixon and Magee. Charles E. Hendrickson, of counsel for Warner, led in the argument. The first errors given were those of the Court to the Jury. The counsel for the defendant prepared a series of requests to the Court to charge the jury. The first two and the seventh were charged as requested, but the other seven the Court partially refused to charge, and that, it was claimed, had an adverse effect on the jury. The Court refused to charge upon the relation of intoxication in its effects upon the mind of the prisoner; to his capacity to exercise that deliberation and premeditation that by the statute are essential ingredients to the crime of murder in the first degree, and to the reasonable doubt whether the defendant, as the result of intoxication or its after effects, had sufficient mental capacity to exercise that deliberation and premeditation. The second point of the argument was that the court's charge to the eighth request was highly prejudicial to the defendant. The charge was made in a skeptical way, followed up with propositions of law and argument so pointed that the jury may have been biased against the prisoner. Further in the argument, Mr. Hendrickson stated that the Judge's definition of murder was erroneous, and that the Court erred in not informing the jury that the facts they were called upon to determine would constitute murder in the second degree. On the question of the misconduct of the jurors, we spoke at length. The jury while out walking passed the scene of murder and the defendants waived the right to a new trial in court. The insistment was that the prisoner on trial upon a capital charge could not act freely, particularly under the rigid alternative which the Court declared should follow a refusal of such waiver, and the same was and should be adjudged to have been an invasion of the constitutional rights of the prisoner and therefore void. The action of the Court was erroneous and the error injurious to the defendant. But for the waiver the jury would have been discharged and the defendant have had at least another chance for his life, if not an absolute discharge, as having been once in jeopardy. Another error was the omission of the Judge, before sentencing the prisoner to death, to demand of him if he knew why the Court might not proceed to sentence him. This should have been done and it is material that it should appear on the record. Prosecutor Eckard Budd argued during the afternoon. He declared that Justice Garrison's charge was "clearly, concisely and distinctively stated." His statement of what is necessary under the statute to constitute murder, his explanation of the different degrees, his judicial interpretation of the words "artful, deliberate and premeditated." He gave much time to the waiver of the defendant of the consequence of the visit by the jury to the scene of murder. He stated that the jury only remained on the spot three minutes and no one pointed out any details to them. He claimed that the defendant was benefited by the visit of the jury, for the place where the crime was actually committed was not as favorable for a foul crime as a short distance beyond. He claimed that the defendant could not waive his right to object to the introduction of testimony and then after the trial is over say: "I wish to withdraw that waiver ?" He cited considerable authority to sustain the point that in an indictment of murder, no right of the defendant can be waived by his counsel or by anyone acting for him, but that the defendant himself can personally waive such right. As to the error that the Court did not ask Warner if he had anything to say before sentence, the State insists that in Revised Statutes, section 69 of the Crimes act: "Every person convicted of murder of the first degree, his or her aiders, abettors, counselors and procurors should suffer death." The statute does not require that the Judge ask if he has anything to say why the sentence shall not be pronounced. The decision will be announced later.

On 19 Jul 1893, the newspaper nicely recapped the events of the Peak affair:
Mount Holly is generally good for at least one lively episode per week and more particularly is this so during the summer solstice. The last one on record had a member of the now celebrated Peak family as the central figure. Within a few years this family has figured in more sensations than any other family in the State. It has been but a few years since that Barclay Peak shot his sweetheart, Katie Anderson and left her insensible upon the roadside and eventually to die. His trial upon the charge of murder proved to be a celebrated one, deep interest being taken in the proceedings in this and foreign countries. The medical experts were men of much greater note than those who figured in the Lizzie Borden and Carlyle Harris cases. Peak was convicted and sentenced to be hung. He secured a new trial, however, and finally admitting that he shot the girl in self-defense, was sentenced to twenty years in State prison which he is now serving. ... The next member of the family to figure in a sensation was Lizzie Peak, and it was a sad one, resulting in her death. That took place in September last, when Wesley Warner, her lover, in an uncontrollable fit of jealous rage fatally stabbed her with a butcher knife. Warner had a wife and children at the time, but becoming blindly infatuated with the pretty Peak girl had abandoned them to their fate. Lizzie, too had led a gay life and previous to her alliance with Warner lived in a commodious and comfortable establishment Burlington at the expense of a prominent citizen of that city. Warner's trial also proved deeply interesting. One of the eye-witnesses to Warner's awful crime was Amanda Peak, a sister of the dead girl, and she proved a most valuable witness for the prosecution. Strange to relate, however, it was divulged upon the witness stand that some time before she had been married to a brother of Wesley Warner, her sister's murderer. Warner was convicted and sentenced to be hanged. Able counsel, however, set up a formidable array of legal technicalities and the execution did not take place. Whether he shall have a new trial depends upon the decision of the Supreme Court which has the matter under consideration. Warner is taking things comfortably and unconcernedly in the county jail here and has strong hopes of serving a term in State prison instead of forfeiting his life upon the gallows. Now, Amanda Peak appears before the public in an unenviable light. As a "grass" widow she exercises privileges of companionship which could not well be taken under other circumstances and recent developments show that he has no particular antipathy toward married men. Her predilection in their favor was the casue of her receiving a severe beating at the hands of an angry woman the other night, an account of which is given elsewhere. This certainly is a strange family history.

That same day, another Peak was in the paper
Mrs. Albertus Warner, more familiarly known as Amanda Peak, was severely beaten with a blackjack by Lizzie Durand, wife of Charles "Lively" Durand, near the Pine street railroad crossing on Tuesday night. Lizzie has not been living with her husband for some time, but at the same time she objected to his keeping company with Amanda Peak, and having seen them together at different times became extremely jealous. She informed Amanda that she must keep away from her husband, but the request was unheeded, and Charles claimed the right to walk upon the street with her in social intercourse, Amanda being an old friend, they having been employed in the same shoe factory in Brooklyn long before Wesley Warner killed her sister. On Tuesday Lizzie was in Mount Holly and in the evening went out Pine stret where she waited for Amanda, who came along on her way home later in the evening. Lizzie stepped out before her armed with a blackjack and a knife and threatened to kill her if she didn't keep away from her husband. "You've got one sister in the grave, and I'll put you there," she exclaimed, as she struck Amanda a blow in the face that knocked her down. She struck her several times as she lay upon the ground. The flagman at the crossing gave the alarm and Amanda's mother and others went to the spot and carried Amanda home. She was rendered unconscious by the blows, but none of her wounds were serious. Mrs. Durand having accomplished her mission hurried away. Amanda was able to be about the next morning, and made complaint before Justice Clevenger against Lizzie, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. The paper was served upon her by Constable Brown. She told the officer she did not like to go through town in his company and that she would follow him to the 'Squire's office. Having faith in Lizzie's promise the constable complied with her request. After waiting a reasonable time for her appearance he went in search of her and learned that she had "skipped," having taken a train for Burlington at Grant Street.

A week later, on 26 Jul:
Albertus Warner was in town the other day looking for the newspaper men who had stated that he was the husband of Amanda Peak. He had blood in his eye. Both of them admitted the fact upon the witness stand during the Warner murder trial.

It wasn't until November that the Supreme Court ruled on the retrial:
The Supreme Court on Thursday decided adversely the appeal of Wesley Warner of Mount Holly, from the conviction of murder in the first degree of Lizzie Peak. It was held in the decision that the main ground for the appeal was the failure of the Court to ask Warner why sentence should not be passed upon him was held to be a mere matter of form without substantial advantage to the prisoner, and the omission to propound the question was decided to have done him no practical injustice. For that reason his conviction was upheld. Notice was given by his counsel that appeal would be made to the Court of Errors and Appeals."