The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-04

to find authorities for the admission Of
such evidence. have made some exam
nation of the authorities and have come
to different conclusion. The book of
Bailey & Parmentcr with the entries there
In made in the usual course of business, by
Parmenter, whose duty it was to make
such entries, after Parmenter's death, was
clearly admissible in evidence of The fact
therein contained. 1t has long been the
established rule, 10 England, and in all the
states of the Union, where the question has
arisen, that entries made by public officer
in the line of his duty and the entries of
all other persons in the usual course of
business, the person making the entries
being dead, are admissible in evidence, and
that such entries are evidence of high
character, and not open to suspicion. The
case of Price vs. Earl of Torrington in
Smiths leading cases, page 800, was es-
pecially cited as authority.
The other exceptions to the ruling Of the
court are easily disposed OF. Warren ii.
Smith proved himself to have been an ex-
pert when on the stand. The jury were
the judges of the weight of their testimony
and were themselves judges Of the hand
writing by comparison. Is there any dan
ger 10 admitting this testimony? The
whole world was open To the other side
but they did not attempt to introduce any
testimony on that subject. The evidence
was so conclusive there was no getting
around it. AS to the charge to the jury it
was credit to the court, and in all its
parts a model of clearness, fairness and
legal learning the respondent can have no
just cause of complaint in regard to it.
There are no facts sci forth in the atllda-
Wits for new trial that are inconsistent
with the guilt of the respondent. If he
was in Brandon on the Sth of June, and at
the Berwick House at one o'clock on the
morning of the 9th, he still had ample time
to commit the deed. 1t would be much
more satisfactory for him to show how he
came by the goods belonging to Mrs.
Freeze he disposed of in Boston the day or
or the next day after the murder than to
show that he attended the circus at Bran
don. And much better than to show that
some person is ready to exhibit himself to
the respondents counsel, only, with the
story that he saw and recognized Mrs.
Freeze with a man in an enclosed hack at
midnight. All such trash would have no
weight with the jury, or in any way influ-
ence their verdict. The case of Middle
town v. Adams, 10 Vt. 2S5, is decisive of
there held that the application for new
trial must first show that injustice has been
done and, secondly, that the evidence
newly discovered would in all probability
lead to verdict and judgment the other
way. But if the court be of the opinion
that the testimony would not materially
affect the result of another trial.
new trial will not be granted.
White weakens his testimony in many
ways and contradicts himself. The girl
who was with him, Mahar, Cain and Stone,
other and neither saw Phair. Charles
Leavitt undertakes to show that Isaac
Smith testified here under an assumed
name, yet lie don't tell whether it was in
Boston or Cambridge that he knew Golf; he
also says he saw a hack go past on Forrest
street and, like the ragmutiins who follow
ed Pickwick through the streets of Lon
don, he follows on and says he saw wo-
man inside he knew he was Mrs. Freeze,
also man with dark clothes 1t was after
IL o'clock at night, and Bond who was
with him, says he could not tell who was
in it. We introduce John II. Roots tcsti-
mony to the effect that Leavitt had said he
had spent most of his life in a worlS-house
in Massachusetts We show, also, by the
witness Walsh, that he is impeached in his
own testimony. Yet If all this was true il
would make no difference with the result
of the trial it is 50 improbable on the face
of it and so contradictory that it could have
no effect on Il jury hereafter.
During the argument of Mr.. Everts the
court took recess for dinner, returning al
2 O'Clock, when the argument was con
cluded half an hour after.
ARGUMENT OF K. j. oIMsBEE.
| approach consideration OF this cas-,
with reluctance. and still with interest
The reluctance grows out of the fact that
must go oyer some ground gone over by
my associate, and consequently be mostly
repetition. See no reason why this shout
be considered au exceptional one it will
be treated and decided by this court like
others. 1t is said, and has been said, by
those in behalf of the respondent, that thu
consequences of this case are serious, ant
they have asked that well-established prin
ciples of law must be set aside on accoun
In its place something which will meet tht
exigencies of this case. In the first place
l answer that this court will not overturl
the law in regard to jurors for the purpos
of accommodating this case. That is tn
first case raisedIin the exceptions. There ha
one thing been said, Wis, that formation o
opinion of juror was not enough TO deem
him inadmissable. In the case in the b
Vermont, in the case of Boardman VS.
Wood the judge says in this state the sub
ject has been fully considered and FINAL.
decided that person who had oppressed hi
opinion was not competent juror. Nov
this case of Boardman VS.. Wood is author
ity in this case on the subject. An
there are good reasons for it. The cas-
has gone so far in some states tina
the legislature has had to interfere
The idea that formation of opino
was Esufiicient would run lis into the sam
, idea, and we must find men who hay
never heard of the case. This would Civ