Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1874-03-13
Who i. She,

A trial just concluded in Portland
Me-, is likely, from the extraordina
ry incidents attending it. to be eel
ebrated in criminal Jurisprudence
The defendant was woman, vari
ously called Catharine Waller, ali
as Carrie M. Kent, alias Carrie M
Waite, and whose maiden name, i,
was charged, was Catharinc Nc
Kenzie. The lady thus plentifully
provided with names is described
as about thirty years Of age, with a
pale countenance and "tirm ex
preston" 1t also appears that her
hair is dark, and was dressed in
Pompadour style. Furthermore,
we are told she was cool and collec.
ted and wore pair of gold-bowed
eyeglasses in surveying the large
audiences in attendance. Tho lady
who thus became All object ofinter-
est to a very large lumber of peo-
pie, was charged, under the laws OF
Maine, with the crime of "polypa-
N.Y." for it is SO called in all the re-
ports we have seen. Under the
statutes of most of the States the Of.
fence would be styled bigamy.
The facts charged by the prose-
cution are sufficiently distinct and
simple. 1t is alleged that in May,
1862, the defendant, then sixteen
years of age, was married in Pic
tou, Nova Scotia, to John Waller,
with whom she lived seven years
two children, now eleven and sew
EN- years of age, being born to them.
In November, 1869, the defendant
came to the States to earn money to
furnish their house. 1t is said that,
living sometimes in Portland and
sometimes in Boston she was known
to different acquaintances whom she
made, as Kate Waller, Kate Wal
lace and Carrie NJ. Kent, and told
various stories concerning her past
life. But the most singular of the
charges against her are those which
declare that during her entire alb
sence she corresponded regularly
with Waller, and that after her mar
riage with Mr.. Waite, early in
1873, she returned to her first hus-
band and renamed with him for
several days as his wife. To all
these assertions the defendant en-
tered a general denial and set up
case of mistaken identity.
The husband, John Waller, posi-
lively identified the prisoner as his
wife. She was also identified in as
strong terms by his sister and her
husband, both Of whom had known
her before her marriage to Waller,
and had never known or heard of
any one closely resembling her.
But the dramatic portion of the tri-
al was in the evidence of the two
children. The eldest, going close
up to the prisoner, said positively,
eyes, sir, that is my mother"
Whereupon the reporters are care
full to tell us, "the prisoner looked
the child steadily in the face, and
turning to Mr.. Waite, SMILED as if
to say "a pretty piece of acting.'"
The general opinion will be that up
on one side or the other it was
most marvellous piece of acting.
But the testimony Of the little girl
was not shaken by >cross.eAamina-
ton, and it is possible that Judge,
jury and spectators began at this
point to take deeper interest in
the drama in real life enacting be-
fore them. The second child was
not of much to the prosecution, for
although he remembered the visit
of the prisoner to Pictou last July,
when she bought him jack knife
and pair of boots, and was certain
she was his mother, it appeared
that upon material facts he had
been told what to say by his father
and aunt. But numerous other wit
nesses were called, all of whom
were positive that the prisoner sit
ting beside her husband, Mr.. Waite,
was the Catharine Mckenzie who
had married John Waller. The
prosecution closed with evidence
that when in Pictou last summer
the prisoner had left there pocket
handkerchief marked "Carrie NJ.
Kent"
The defense opened on Saturday,
manifestly with the intention Of es-
tablishing a case of mistaken iden-
tity, and produced evidence that
the prisoner had been frequently
mistaken for a woman known as
Catharine Wallace, who, it was
claimed, was really the wife of Wal
ler. This woman was not, however,
produced. The facts alleged by the
prosecution appear almost incredi-
bic. A novelist having an uncon-
querable taste for the improbable
might be pardoned for making a
woman act as this defendant is
sworn to have done, but he would
gain no laurels from his work. The
desertion is probable enough, for
we all know that husbands desert
their wives, and wives their hus-
bands, every day. But it is difficult
to account for this wife, after hav-
ing deserted her husband, not only
keeping up a constant correspon-
dence with HIM, but actually return
ing to him and remaining with
him several days after her second
marriage. Assuming that the wit
nesses for the prosecution are not
mistaken in their Identification, the
self-possession of the prisoner dur
ing her trial is something marvel.
GUS. Few women have ever shown
such perfect self-control under try
ing circumstances, and if she is re-
ally the woman she is said to be, it
is q pity the stage has lost such rare
powers Of stimulation. A woman
capable of such acting is not de-
sirable member of society, and we
must hope that in the end she will
be able to prove that she has been
more sinned against than SHINING.
1t is unfortunate for her and the
community that the trial has not
had q decisive result; but it is not
surprising that the jury failed to
agree upon . verdict. We are told