The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-04
STATE VS.. JOHN p. PHAIR.
MORE TEsTIMONY FOR THE RE-
sP0NDENT.
Arguments of the Counsei.

ton OF more testimony Dv the counsel on
both sides. The court room was very well
filed during part of the day, although the
interest heretofore taken in the case APP
pears to have nearly died out The prison.
err, Phair, was in attendance most of the
time, and was the subject of general Curl
ositY and comment. He looks healthy
still, although trifle paler than on the oc-
casion of his last appearance in public,
which fact may be accounted for by his
semi-attempts at starvation. His usual
look of unconcern and sordid indifference
is still noticeable upon his countenance and
seems not to change as the crisis in his case
approaches nearer.
Col. Veazey, from the counsel for the
respondent, opened, on the incoming of the
court yesterday Wednesday, morning, by
reading the following additional testimony
DEPOSITION OF FRANK K. noroHKIss.
Am clerk at the postoflice, and board
at the Berwick House, but did not sleep
there knew the location of rooms "a and
CT ; there is window in the hall nearly
opposite the door of room "a have tried
the experiment of seeing the window Of
G. from said hall window, and my atten-
ton called to the light in 81, which could
see by standing within about twelve feet of
the hall window; the latter window was
not open could have seen person in 81
had they stood near the window.
Cross-examined-
Do not think ] should think of seeing
the window without paying particular at
tentlon could see about half the window
by looking across the back yard had to
look up pretty well no other lights were
to be seen on the same side at the time !;
the window is the first one from the cor
ner of the building
DEPOSITION OF G. II. HEWITT.
Am law student and board at the Ber-
wick House have occupied room 80 !;
know the location of rooms "a and 81 and
have tried the experiment Of looking from
the hall window nearly opposite room "a
to the window of 81 could see two.thirds
of the window by standing foot back
from the hall-window and turning my eye
balls well up.
Cross-eXamined-
Am law student in Dunton 4 Neazcy's
Office; have not been very active in get
ting up testimony for the respondent in this
case the window of room 81 is in the
angle of the building, two windows from
room 35 room "a is on the east side
looked from the hall window.
DEPOSITION OF JOHN j. CROWLEY.
Was at the exhibition given by Buffalo
Bill at the Opera House on the evening of
June 9Th ; saw Leavitt and Bond there !;
they staid through the whole exhibition.
Cross-eXamined-
Did not board with them worked with
Leavitt at the chair factory; was intimate
ly acquainted with him and sat beside him
at the Opera House did not 90 in or come
out with him next met him on the corner
near the Central House about five minutes
after the show was over; did not go on
with him he went to the depot did not
see him with any women he did not have
any whiskey in HIM that night
DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL BOND.
Don't think told John r. Root that |
came in early on Monday night went to
the Buffalo Bill show and came out when
it was over, about 11.30.
Cross examined =
Went with Lcavitt TO the Opera House
that night and came out with him; the
hack that we saw was close covered ; both
windows were down did not recognize
the driver think | saw a woman inside, in
the right hand corner think ! could re-
cognize the woman did not see any cur
tans | was on the walk about six feet
from the hack, going the same way at
natural gait Leavitt was with me could
see the hack turn on to Forest street ; saw
the inside of the hack about a second
know Mrs. Freeze but did not recognize the
woman Lcavitt was on the side next the
road he was not intoxicated.
DEPOSITION OF W. G. yEAZEY.
Am one of the counsel assigned by Tho
court in behalf of the respondent in this
case and participated in the trial in Sep
TENDER last that trial closed on Saturday
and during the day l was informed tina
there were men at the chair factory wht
knew some facts in relation to the cas-
which they wished to testify in court (;
did not then know what it was and as i
was after the testimony had closed | pai'
no attention to it first saw Charlie
Leavitt on the next Monday and heard hi
story; then made out petition for
new trial in this case.
This closed all the new testimony intro
duced and the counsel then proceeded t
give their arguments in the case.
OPENING ARGUMENT OF COL. W. q. vEAzEl
The first question arising under the b
of exceptiont is the one pertaining to tn
qualifications of jurymen. ! am awar
that question has arisen to the effect tbs
the formation of an opinion by juror ha
not heretofore been regarded as sufiicer
cause for challenge, but such opinion mus
have been expressed. That juror hi
formed an opinion, is ground for challeng
in many states and is clearly the only SAT
| 4 H.. al, loo
opinion at the time of the trial, is disqual
fled by former expression of q
opinion, the having an opinion at IL
time of the trial which he cannot say bl
that he has expressed, should certainl
disqualify him.
. When juror said he had expressed q
r opinion as to the guilt Of the respondent {
= reading a newspaper account of the exam
: nation before the magistrate n few wepl