The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-10-05


gument for the defense was made by Col.
w. g. Veazey, which occupied the entire
forenoon session.
ARGUMENT OF COL. W. @. vEAZEY.
The facts must be consistent with each
other and must be conclusive, that no one
else but the accused did the deed. If they
include theory that does not lead direct to
the accused, 1t fails. This is laid down by
established law In such cases. For instance,
person is killed and his throat is cut; but
whether murder or suicide is known not.
Again, person may have been found
killed, and it is doubtful which of dozen
different men did the deed. This case
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
You must have the burden of proof from
the prosecutor. Every man is expected to
he innocent until found guilty. His gull,
must be found by moral certainty. 1t is
not enough that you believe the prisoner is
guilty: it is not enough he more likely did il
than not Are every one of you individi-
ally convinced Of his guilt, so that you
would risk your life upon that conviction:
If not, We should have a verdict of acqut-
tai. 1t is personal responsibility which
rests upon you, and you must act indie
rendenlly of each other. The question is.
Am morally certain of this mans guilt?
II not, you must render verdict of ac-
quittal. There are two kinds of crcum-
stantal evidence positive and presump-
tive. To illustrate. A knock is heard at
the door; you find q man there's the pre-
sumption is he knocked, whereas another
man may have knocked, slipped away, and
this man taken his place. Such is he pre-
sumption which the government reles on
in the prosecution of this case. Circum-
stantial evidence If likened TO rope made
up of weak threads, but all combining to
make the rope strong
Having seen the kind of proof in this
case we must proceed to look at the evil
dence. What are the circumstances They
tell us the respondent was intimate with
the deceased. They have not proof that
he was there only few times. II is PROV
ed that she was visited by other men by day
and night. Therefore, his intimacy can
have but little weight upon his mind.
Would it be probable that this man, with
murder in his heart, would he seen IN pub
lie with her; would he do that? The pre-
sumption is he would not then be the man
who would take her life. Bear in mind lie
was not seen with her after Saturday night.
They only have testimony that he was
seen eighty or ninety rods Sunday morning
passing away from the house They
therefore don't bring him near enough to
the murder. His intimacy is of but little
value to the state. Another thing they
state is that he was away from his room
from Friday night till up 10 the time of his
arrest. But they have not proved it. The
girl says she does not know but that the
bed was slept in aud made up as usual
They bring in the man Cain who says the
sheets did not indicate that they had been
slept in and that the bottom and top sheets
looked alike. The girl said only one sheet
was changed and the other must therefore
have been used for week. This destroys
all their evidence upon that subject. 1t is
conclusive that the bed did show a mussed
appearance. You do not believe that they
have established the proof that it was not
slept in every night Even if he did not
sleep in it they have not proved it, and you
must not give weight to it. Proof is here
that he was in the habit of staying away.
1t is in proof here and not disputed that
other men were with this woman after this
man was; that two men were there in a
violent wrangle with the woman on Mon
day. They make great account that he
was not seen here on Monday. You must
exclude all such proof, as 1t is mere
ly negative proof. They ask you to
come to the conclusion that he was
there at the womsn's house. He
says he was at Brandon and saw this man
Cain there. Cain says he was there. But
the fact that no one happened to see him
there does not prove anything. should
be Mortified that any verdict of guilty
would be found on such flinsy testimony.
He came to town only a few days before
and was therefore stranger at Brandon.
Ifhe had been a. resident of this county
there would be people there who would
have seen him. Mr.. Deming says not one
In twenty registered at the Brandon
House that day. Cain says he did not see
him on the train but that many were asleep
and he did not pretend that he could see
all whom he knew as he went through.
This same woman alleged to have been
murdered has been seen on that very Mon
day when they claim this man was at her
house. 1t is preposterous. They say he
went to Boston Tuesday morning, but does
that prove anything, gentlemen ? Were
there not hundreds who went there that
day All the evidence does not tend TO
throw particle of suspicion on his actions
that Tuesday morning All say that he
appeared natural and usual. This man
they say coming from that scene of horri-
BILE crime did not attract attention unusual
ly but he appeared natural. Then we have
proved that he went straight through Bos-
ton to Providence depot. They prove and
we prove that his statement was right
which he gave to any one who asked him
after his arrest. The state witnesses swear
that this trip was the following out of a
design had long in the mind of this man.
Contemplated some time and expressed by
him, that he proposed to get a job in the
screw factory he wanted lighter work
than he had at Mansfield d Slimsons shop.
We find there was screw factory in Pro-
violence. The states attorney has good
deal to say that he did not sever his connec-
ton with his employers then. One of his
acquaintance had told him to get him n