Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1869-04-30

herself :. s1lu fOSler was Il WHY eltiug
that Foster couldn't have got up after she went
to bed and gone off with a team without her
knowing it, as she slept with her window up
she said she knew nothing about the burglary
ard had no objection to having the house search
Ell, Witness then went away for an hour or SO,
on anofher matter. while the others searched the
house On nv return we went ito search the
honse agan witness detailed his inyestiga-
lions Of the premises she denied there being
any trap-door or hiding place on the premises,
except one which she showed me, recess near
the milk-rcom witness detailed his examina-
ton of Mr.. Griswold's room she offered to help
get up the carpet to prevent its being torn
found nothing, and she asked me If | was now
satisfied then took out the bel, and under It
found the boards sawed of she declared she
never saw the place before, and that nothing
would be found there when the second cut in
the floor appeared. | said thought the goods
were under there, which she denied Witness
detailed the opening Of the trap and the dis
covery and position of che goods under il, and
chisel which fitted the marks On Mr.. Wright's
store after the goods were taken out | said,
when the trap was opened, "You see we have
found the goods, how did they come here2' She
answered, 81 don't know anything about it it
must be that miserable Steve Foster
Sought for and discovered Stephen Foster,
some two weeks after in prison at Swee'sbury,
Canada Counsel for defence excepted to this
testimony.1
CroSs-erdmined-Foster was here last Fall
and winter; was witness at the trial Of Potter
last September; don't know where he is now, he
left my house the day before court to g to Bos-
ton, as he said; did nothing to induce him to co
away; never told any one l had, nor had any
talk with parties at the Custom House about it;
had no right to keep him here longer; have ties
tilted before about this investigation Of Potter's
premises. Witness repeated his testimony as
to the conversation between him and Mr. p.
about Foster; described the position and char
acter of the hole under the floor.
Sol Walker testified Reside near q mile in
a northwest direction from Charles Poter's: l
am a relative by marriage to Charles Potter;
know Steve Foster he has worked for me Heard
of the burglary Foster came to my house on
Monday latter the burglary. On Tuesday
about or O'Clock in the morning, Foster
rode with me to Charles AIiller's and returned
with me, and repaired a lock on my front door,
He left about two o'clock and has never been
back. Next time l saw him was at the Septem-
Der court.
Cross-erGmined Foster had lived with me
before When be came | knew nothing about
his movements. Diagram Of respondents house
shown witnessl. Should think the distance be
tween the windows Of the rooms occupied by
Mrs Potter and Fosters room Is from 20 TO 80
feet; don't think | should hear teams driving in
to the back yard from the kitchen part; it would
be difficult to hear ordinary walking in the back
part Of the house from Mrs. Potter's room.
Testimony on the part Of the State was closed.
Mr.. Ballard then moved that the court direct
a verdict Of acquittal of the respondent for two
reasons:
First, because the indictment contains one
count for receiving stolen goods by one Steve
Foster, and one count for receiving goods stolen
by some persons unknown. The Indictment
must show that they are stolen by some one else
than the respondent. If the goods are found
in her possession, and they are proven to have
been stolen, she is not receiver but a prinei-
pal. The presumption Of law always being that
the person in whose possession stolen goods are
found is guilty Of the taking. The evidence
does not show that these goods were stolen by
any one else except the respondent.
Second The respondent was at the time Of
the burglary the wife of Charles II. Potter, who
had sole possession and control, as the evidence
shows, Of the premises where the goods were
found IN the eye oil 'hs ID" the rue Is 'A1'
the goods are III 'he possession Oh 'he hl'''n' .
and not of the wife
Inc courreiused 10 RUE mus anu respond
ent's counsel took exceptions
E l. Tousley testified went to the Potter
premises last winter and examined them care
fullv | think Mrs Potter's room above was
directly over tie room below. Witness was
here excused
Mr.. Ballard here put III the Indictment found
last september term against MI ro"er' ior
burglary The court then discharged the
jurors In attendance al THIS court except those
forming the panel sitting On the ease now on ,
trial-
HE testimony beng ci'sel Mt Roberts the
state Attorney aiiies7el 'he jury canning !
the iae' oi 'he 'ne'' 20 DC pam! maze eu'' anu
tna' MIS- fol'er AAo"ielEe lnai 'he soIs
were stolen was e4uaAy Proved " remaining
only 10 De SHOWN 'l@' s'.e ".''l j" l''7l''Ds OF
'ohcea'lhg 'heni' he Ne-l 'l1' ''-' ''e c-fclln-
stances pro'el went 10 emo" 'Ae u'A o. nsl .
'','-
IL '',' A01'' "''-,'1' H'' Ai-" ','7' ID ''''.-'
-o' ''' .
-oiiV =, '-''' s'. 7'' IL WIS 7
marry P'Ssioi' 'i'A' sue 7--'u'' i'' n''e hii'"A
. '-
II = ii'i'i' i0S'.'-' '-' '''''' '-0' ~,
le Aep' n4uor AeIe DIS inc ''7p 9hs-u-e person II
Il charge u Is not p1sslo'e any one could nave
inferred the house and deposited the goods with f
ut her knowledge All her deuillS Of knCWl- Il