Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1866-04-20

=, were revolver and chlOrofOrm what his bui
H. IL Ness was is for you to say.
H. Now, gentlemen, come TO the intervie
ne between Kelly and the respondent Ward
he Jail about the first Of October. What occ.sic
of had Ward to induce Kelly to say that be new,
T? saw him before, if the prisoner had never bee
st here before as be alleged: The letters intr,
Ve dueed in evidence corroborats the tt.stiinnn
IL OF k"'ly to that conversation.
es Nr. Hard here read the tSo letters frol
h Lavigne to Prase already published, and rc
5. marked as to the proof that they were sc:uall
u written by the prisoner, appears from h
= testimony of Pease. Ballard and Others
Other letters will be- shown YOU proven {,
/ have been written by the prisoner as well a
= the piece ofpaper found on him with the al
+ dress. John Ward, &c. on it; also the rail
I road ticket with the address on the back Z
: curious place 70 an address; but probably Il
. was put there . further means Ol mislc~d.
ing pursuit aai eyading identification.
, As 10 the mO'ive for this crime Il does nj
! appear that there was enough plumber to
tempt any burglar 20 come up IRON New York
MT-. Griswo.d hal some jcwelry, some silver
] but not cagugh 20 pay for such trip. and IL
! aiust have been taken tor the preparation o
, murder; therefore. when the question arises
Who was the author OF such a crime the first
. A'A'ttAA - ~ AN uAl Il AluLlkt llT L. Inc
testimony lsils 10 disclose .ny human being
who bad 80 much interest to have M.s Girls
wo.i killed - Potter aud his family. To he
sure she was turbulent, unreasonable wO-
nign. but there j. no evidence o; any III feel
ing between her aud Err neigabors. Men are
murdered i0f money or revenge. Potter. We
say. was affected by both motives His wife
Was heir 10 Mrs Griswold's estate and sevc
rHl witnesses show that there was i'll feeling
between Mr. Griswold and Potter
Mr. Hard proceeded to elucidate the te.t
nony Of williams A. to conversation between
him and Potter, and OF Others as To the re-
marks OF Potter at dinner remarks natural
elough to be made by a man in bad temper.
Nr. Griswold testifes that the old lady
/ grew impatient and fretful because she could
I not do as -he had been used TO before POtters
family came: he te>tifes that he saw Mrs. Pot
I ter push her over; at one time, Mary Sullivan
says they hal difficulty. This evidence all
shows that there was bad state Of feeling,
and here are two motives shown for the crime
-ayarice and revenge
Mr. Hard then proceeded to discuss the evil
deuce as to Wards visit to Potter. house the
talk about taking him to the depot. and the
misrepresentation Of Potter as 10 where he
came from Aal then went on 10 consider Pot
t.r'- visit to Pline'vile and meeting OF Ward
tlere
Il Will De- held. probably by the other side
that Pottcrs decision 20 ~ TO Canada was not
formed TIL late Saturday evening, but evi-
d-ucr shows that he had been taking about il |
f1r two or three weeks. lie starts. goes 10 /
Panesville. and stops, naturally; in our theory |
q: the cl'e. he would wish TO stop md assure |
Ward a. the whole family were out Of lhe |
way. He sees some stranger certainly. and /
Bowman's testimony that he SaS Ward is un-
contradicled lie SAYS he saw them together /
behind .hr wagon. At the inquest Potter de- !
niei that he saw any man but the one he got a /
cigar OF. and the one holding bis horse. or 1
walked or talked with any ono. II be dill |
have a. innocent conversation with any one 4
why shouldn't he admit il he couldn't have /
forgotten the fac. only two or three davs /
afler. But Bowman gives the details as he
witnessed heir interview, from the time he
saw the man leaning against the back OF the
wagon waiting for Potter The appearance
and condition Of the premises have some
bearing in this case. They show that the
murderer was acquainted with the condition
Of Affairs. He entered by the kitchen door;
there Is no pretence Il any entrance else
wherr. Would 4 stranger have known how
-asily that door might be orened No: he !
would sooner have tried 4 window. The |
murderer must have known the condition Of
that latch Possibly Ward NAV have detected
it while sitting IN the kitchen previously.
Then the door leading IRON the room where
the boy slept which opens outward was fas-
tened by a chip outside.
some pains will probably be taken by |
Counsel on the other side 10 show that there
was an attempt to open front window on the
plaza | think myself that fact has great
weight, but not from the inference that they
would naturally draw from it. that 4 stranger I
did 1t. not knowing the easiest way 10 get into
the house. | regard it as rather an attempt to
avert and mislead suspicion. For the bloody
tracks on the piazza show beyond doubt that
this attempt was made after the murder.
There was no need 20 force windows then the
door was open. Why, then, was It done - TO
avert suspicion that some one familiar with
the premises had done the deed.
Mr.. Roberts, Counsel for the defence, here
inquired why Il did not rather show that the
murderer was unable TO get into he other
part of the house through the doors, and so
tried the window!
tt must have been easy job to open 4
hall inch door with such jimmy evil
IDENTITY was uscl ald II desirous to get into
the other part OF the house burglar would
much sooner have tried it than run the risk Of
attracting attention by going round outside.
Mr.. Hard here closed his argumen; ;or tie
state. and Mr.. French eommrn ed.
NE. rRENcI's AEGuvENr
Nr. French, counsel for Potter. requested
tbe Court to charge the jury upon the follow
ing points:
l. That upon the evidence in the case the
jury should acquil the respondent Potter un
der this indictment.
The prosecution does not claim that Potter
was present at the commission Of the murder,
but virtually concede that he was in Sheldon.
as his the respondent's) testimony tends to
show. The indictment charges the respond
ents with the commission of the offence jointly.
The case shows that Potter,i guilty at all, was
only an accessory before the fact.
II. That unless the jury find that Potter him
self perpetrated the murder, or was present
aiding and abetting it, the jury should acquit
him under this indie tment And that in order
to constitute such aiding and abettng he must
at the time OF the commission of the crime
have been so near the place. or in such sit
u2tiOn that he might have rendered assistance
in some manner to the commission OF the Of
fence, ami this by agreement with the chief
perpetrators ; "Greenleaf on Ev.'
Under the old English law there was DIFF
ference between murder in the art and sec-
ond degiee-a murderer in the first degree
being the actual perpetrator of the crime,
murderer in the second degree being one who
did not actually commit the crime, but who
was present aiding and abetting the principal
perpetrator. These distinctions are not main
tanned in this State; still, the distinction be
tween principal and an accessory before the
fact is as a, fully maintained a it is under the
old system; and one indicted as a principal
cannot be convicted as an accessory before
the fact This doctrine is shown in Sc Common
wealth vs.. Knapp 9th and 10th Pickering;
being the leading American case on this sub
jeet-
Ill. That at all eveats, in order to convict
Potter, the jury must find that Re knew the
murder was 10 be committed and did some act