The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-16
THE FREEZE MURDER CASE.
THE DECISION OF THE REWARD.
j. &. thornton and N. G. Stcarns
to Receive $1,000 Each Geo. w.
Crawford and Charles Matthews
to Receive $3.50 Each.

|
to Receive $1,000 Each; Geo. w.
Crawford ana Charles Matthews
to Receive $3.50 Each.
The undersigned arbitrator, to whom is
submitted the matter of the distribution
among the several claimants of the reward
of twenty-five hundred dollars offered by
the seectmen of the town of Rutland, "for
the arrest and conviction of the murderer
or murderers of Mrs. Ann Freeze in Rut-
land on the night of June 8, 1874" makes
and publishes his findings and award as
| follows:
1t will be observed that this reward was
offered for the "arrest and conviction"
nothing being offered for information, ETC.,
as in many cases found reported. The
submission in this case is the apportion-
ment of this reward among the claimants
according to the illegal rights" of each.
The law seems well settled in England,
| New York and in this state, somewhat at
variance with some decisions in Massachu-
sets, that, under offers of rewards in
terms like this, the suspecting of the real
offender and announcing such suspicion
| privately or publicly is no ground of claim
to the reward that notice of suspicious
| with information as to the reasons for
| them, to an officer whose duties re-
| quire such officer to make arrest
of offenders and a request that such
officer takes the necessary measures for
the arrest of the criminal affords no ground
of claim for the reward and further, that
one rendering services in the arrest and con-
viction of an offender under contract or
employment of those seeking such arrest and
| conviction, has his claim for compensation
| for such services under his employment
and contract. and must rely upon that, and
cannot share in the reward offered. Ref
erence is made to Russell " Stewart, Al
VT r., 10; City Bank V. Bangs, Ed
wards Chancery r., IS Fallick V. Barber
1 Maule & Selwyn r., 10S; and cases cited
| in these reports.
In the distribution Of rewards the law
seems to contemplate as the purpose of re-
wards to stimulate enterprise and dctiue
e60rt in accomplishing. the object sought
| by the reward and thus relying upon the
reward for compensation.
| These principles which seem to have
| been recognized by the courts, must con-
troll the disposition of this reward. Mr.
Hotchkiss, Mr.. Richardson and Mr.. Cain
seem to have had their supicions of the real
| offender, at an early hour after the crime
was known, and to have communicated
| such suspicious and such information as
| they had 10 various persons, and to police
officers, and may have thus induced the
pursuit which resulted in the arrest of
Phair ; and Mr.. Hotchkiss may have
notified Crawford, who made the arrest,
that he should claim share of the
reward if Phair proved to be
most either of these claimants did.
1t does not satisfactorily appear that
either of these had any agreement or under
standing well defined that they or either of
them might or should share in the reward.
Mr.. Stone and his companion made a fruit
less effort for the finding of Phair with
warrant for his arrest and with that his
| efforts ceased.
! Mr.. Abrams appears to have been very
important witness in the case, and to have
rendered important service to Thornton
and Stearns in detecting, identifying and
convicting Phair, but his service and all
he did appears and is admitted to have
been under an agreement with them for
compensation from them for what he
should do in the matter, and this without
notice to them or any claim made of them,
that he should share in the reward, till
after his services had been rendered and the
conviction of Phair was well assured. 1t
|
ceived of his pay from them, as he needed
or DESIRED up to the end of his services,
subject TO final settlement of any balance
that might be his due.
Mr.. Crawford and Mr.. Matthews seem to
have early enlisted in the enterprise of
discovering and arresting the crimi-
| nal. whoever he was, and to have
had their attention directed TO Phair
soon after the crime was discovered, and
without much effort, to have taken his
track and arrested him. Nothing appears
to have been found upon or about him to
ct all connect him (Phair) with the crime
find as matter Of fact, that at once after
the arrest Crawford, acting in behalf of
himself and Matthews, had an arrangement
with Stearns and Thornton that they
should undertake the business of looking
up the evidence necessary for the conyc-
ton of Phair, if he was the guilty party.
They (Thornton and Stearns) to bear all
expenses and take their risk, and rely upon
the reward for reimbursement, and that
thereupon Crawford and Matthews, rely
ing upon Stearns and Thornton, substan-
TALLY abandoned further pursuit TO them
under the arrangement that if Phair was
convicted they, the four, should together
share the reward, as should be right be-
tween them. And it further appears
that Thornton and Stearns took upon
themselves the entire responsibility
of preparing the evidence for the trial Of
Phair, before the magistrate, the grand
jury and IN county and supreme courts ;
and that they incurred expenses in
money paid out, nearly twelve hundred
dollars, of which about five hundred
and sixty dollars has been received by them
from the state directly and in fees, the bal
ance only to be received by them from said
reward, that each of said Thornton and
Steans necessarily spent nearly two
months time in said business.
Under which findings, and the law as
, understood, the undersigned awards that
Geo. w. Crawford and C.. II. Matthews
are each entitled 10 the sum of two hun
dred and fifty dollars of said sum of TWEEN
ty-iivo hundred dollars so offered by said
selectmen.
And that the said j. G. Thornton and N.
S. Stearns are each entitled to the sum of
one thousand dollars of said twenty-five
hundred SO offered by said selectmen and
that each OF said four pay of the fees of
the arbitrator (ffty dollars in the proper
ton that each is awarded of said sum so
offered as a reward.
And that neither of the other claimants
are entitled TO share in the distribution of
said reward.
Witness my hand and seal, this 10Th day
of March, 1876.
WARREN II. SMITH, Arbitrator.
. z-=----==-=
| j. IL Il. Caden would give notice to all