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

. =
tered out there he asked me for $40
counted out S42 and he said better let hlu
have it all. made little netc of 1t, lex
hlbits note small note Of hand for 81:
which the signer agrees to pay within 81
days)
Cross EIamiaed.-I am % years Of age
born in Ireland; came from Ireland in -
horse | noticed nothing about his fingers
lie Is not the man ! referred 10 who cam,
and took dinner.
CrosS-Er.-i have been talked with sine
/ Mr.. Edwards testified. by Mr.. Roberts.
THE ARGUMENTS.
The argument for the prosecution wa
opened by E. R. HARD. Esq.
! Mr.. Hard remarked IN opening that ther,
was no doubt that the homicide OF Mrs
| GriswOld was a murder. He should have
little to say on the legal points, simply call
ing their attention TO the fact that it IS not
necessary to constitute person a principal
in a murder that he must have been present
when it was co.lmit,cd. If he performs a
par, IN it, he is a principal. In this case,
If it appears that the murder was committed
by Ward, while Potter was in Sheldon, and
also that Potter instigated the crime and
aided it by removing all the family to afford
facilities for It's commission, he is as much a
principal as If he held the fatal knife.
Our theory Is that Ward, or Layigue, or
whatever may be his name, was the one who
held the weapon, and that Potter was the
instigat)r and accomplice Of this appalling
crime.
The first inquiry is if Lavigne trG, the
person who committed the act. No human
eye saw what was done, unless it was the
victims and the murdercr's. and probably
not theirs, for it was done in the night. The
question must be determined by the circum-
stances.
1t Is the natural method first to ascertain
if Ward had the opportunity to commit the
crime We know little about him. Two
witnesses are brought from New York, but
they can tell US little, except that be went
by two or three namts, and that his only
business was that of a bounty broker. But
We find that he was within a convenient dis
tance for the commission Of the crime.
The first we see of him IT the testimony,
he is seeking a conveyance to Williston on
rides then from the cars with Mr.. Charles
On the way he inquiries about Potter, l.
carried by Charles part way 10 Peters
house, is directed to 1t. and leaves in that
direction. On the 10Th of September Mr..
Charles is called to the Jail in Burlington,
and identifies this man here, as the stranger
who rode with him. lie mentions as one Of
the means of Identification a PECULIARLY
about his eyes: and without commenting
on Wards appearance, it is proper TO say
that he has marked countenance, calculated
to make a strong impression and likely
to be remembered in spite Of a change Of
whiskers. lie is next identified by Morris
Sullivan as a stranger whom he saw with
Mr.. Potter on their way to the depot, that
same Wednesday. We have also the testi-
mony Of Mary Sullivan, an intelligent and
candid witness, who was at Mrs. GriswOld's
house on that Wednesday, and saw the
stranger frequently. 4 month later she is
called to Burlington she does not 90 to the
jaIl but remains at the Grand Jury room
the prisoner is brought there, and she testi-
hes that as soon as she saw him .,,as he passed
through the hall, before he was pointed out
to her, she decided in her own mind that
Wednesday. The testimony of Redmond &
Downer is less strong. but bears in the same
direction.
Against this evidence we have that Of Mr.
Griswold, deaf and infrm old man. who
when asked if the prisoner in the box is the
man who was there on that Wednesday,
says he thinks not. He further says he
thinks this is not the man he saw in iaii.-
He is as confident on one Of these points as
on the other. But he Is certainly mistaken
as to one, and undoubtedly is as to the other.
We have also the testimony of a lad of l3,
still residing with Mrs. Potter and Of course,
under some influences to bias his Judgment,
which can be of little consequences and of
little Katy Potter, whose story contains in
herent evidence that it was the device oil
some one shrewOer than she. She says the
man had but three fingers on
his right hand, but she does not
undertake to fix the date. Mr.. Edwards
testimony explains all this. He was there
to purchase a horse he had his knife out
whlttling. HIS loss of finger was noticed
in the presence of the girl. He corresponds
to her description; and it Is altogether pro-
bable that he is the person she describes, or
that she has confounded him with the other
man, both being strangers to her.
The man who was there on that Wednes-
day was with Mr.. Potter for several hours.
Coming to purchase horses of him, is it Ike
ly that Potter would have learned nothing
Of his name and residence and business p
That would be almost impossible. In fact,
there is direct evidence that Potter did as
certain some Of these things. Mary Sulli-
van says Mr.. Potter told her the man came
from Rutland, and Judge French testi6es
that on the inquest Potter said the man said
he came from New York. Why, then, has
not Mr.. Potter produced the man? II be
was borsedealer of Rutland or New York
be could be found and the omission 10 pro-
duoe him is pregnant testimony.