The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-03
STATE vs.. JOHN P. PHAIR.
EXCEPTIONS AND PETITION FOR
A NEW TRIAL.
Introduction of New ana Additional
Evidence.

l
p. Phair for the murder of Mrs. Ann
Freeze, which was tired at the September
term of county court in Rutland. before
Judge Wheeler, and in which verdict
was rendered by the jury of "murder in
the first degree, came up before the SUI
preme court, now in session in Rutland
yesterday Tuesday afternoon. The petit
ton, brought by the respondents counsel,
for a new trial, was embodied in the same
case to be heard with the exceptions, M.
G. Everts, assisted. by L. j. Ormsbee,
former states attorney, for the state !;
Messrs. Dunton & Veazey and ID. f.
Nicholson for the respondent.
The case was opened by Col. veazey, in
behalf of the respondent, at about Ado in
the afternoon. He commenced in the
usual manner by a recital of the history Of
the case and the main points of evidence
which had been brought against the prison.
er by the prosecution, all of which are so
fresh in the minds of our readers that their
publication will not be necessary at this
time. He then read the bill of exceptions
which are in substance as follows:
EXCEPTIONS.
Upon the impanelling of the jury, John
p. Sheldon, called as a juror, on being in
terrogated, answered that he supposed he
had, from reading accounts of the transac-
ton in the newspapers, previously formed
some opinion as to the guilt of the respon-
dent, but did not think he had ever ex-
pressed any opinion that if he knew his
own position, he thought he was not so
prejudiced but what he could try the
case upon the evidence given in court.
Upon this statement counsel for the re-
spondent claimed that he had a right to
challenge this juror for cause. The
court held that this did not show good
cause for challenge, and the juror was per-
mitted to sit, to which the respondent ex-
cepted. Several other persons called as
jurors, on being inquired of, answered that
in reading accounts Of the transactions at
the time, they had formed some opinion as
to the guilt of the respondent, but had
never expressed any opinion concerning it,
and had no bias so but they could try the
case upon the evidence given in court.
Counsel for the respondent claimed the
but the court ovcrruled the claim and per-
mitted the jurors to sit, to which the re-
spondent excepted.
OF these Sylvester c. Taibell, on being
Intercepted, answered, among other things,
rs follows
O. Did you read the account of this mat
ter in the Rutland papers !? A. Yes. sir.
@. Heard the matter talked of? A.
Yes, sir considerable.
Q. Did you form any opinion in regard
to the guilt or innocence of the respondent
A. think did.
@. Any bias or prejudice in the matter
A. No, cir.
Q. Have you expressed any opinion
A. Don't know that have.
@. You have no bias one way or the
other? A. No, sir.
ALSO AARON A. LovELAND.
BY respondents counsel
@. Where do you reside ? A. In Pitts
ford.
@. How far from here =? A. About ten
miles.
@. Do you read our Rutland papers A.
Yes, sir.
@. You read the account of this affair !?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you formed any opinion IN re-
gard to it +? A. Yes, sir, have more or
less.
BY states attorney
Q. Have you expressed any opinion in
this case =? A. don't rccollect as / have
but still might have done so.
Q. Have you formed such an opinion
(if any as to be in the way of your render
ing an impartial verdict according to the
evidence given you in court upon trial A.
don't know as to that.
Q. Are you aware that you have any bias
or prejudice In the matter? A. don't
know that have.
@. Have you any conscientious scruples
as 10 finding the respondent guilty in a
case where the punishment is death A.
think not.
Q. Have you any recollection of express
about the guilt or innocence of the prison.
err? A. don't recollect that have but
still the subject has been talked freely, and
l might have done so.
BY the court =
Q. Have you in your mind now any re-
collection of having expressed yourself as
to the merits of the case, one way or the
other Do you now remember ? A.
don't recollect now that | have still
might have done so as | said before,
have conversed on this subject this case
has been frequently referred to what l
might have done can't say positively
The prosecution called Warren ii. SIN it'll
Esq, of Rutland, as a witness, who testi-
fed, among other things, that he was an
attorney and called himself something of a
judge of handwriting that he had had &C.
casion to examine handwriting with view
to comparisons of writings and been called
to the stand as witness in regard to them
good many times that he thought he
could detect handwriting pretty well that
he had never made business of criticising
writing, but after all had been accustomed
to do it and always supposed he could
identify handwriting pretty well. The
states attorney then inquired of him as to
whether, in his opinion, this writing and
the signatures put in evidence were written
by the same hand, TO which the counsel fol
the respondent objected on the ground that
the witness was not shown to be an expert
| lv 10 ba al iomnJ IN toctifu 10 hie