The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-03

ing that had an account of the murder in
1t that he read the account to the re-
epondent, and handed the paper to him to
read it himself and that he had the same
paper with him on the stand. The states
attorney then asked the witness to read
from the paper what he read to the respon
dent. The counsel for the respondent OBJ
jected. The court over-ruled the objec-
ton and the witness read aloud what he
was asked to read. To this decision the
respondent objected.
The prosecution called one Bradbury M.
Bailey as witness, who testified that he
was jeweler at Rutland, and that he
knew Anna Freeze, the deceased, by sight;
that her watch had been repaired or clean
ed at his and his partners store, and that
they had records of it that they kept a
book, which he produced. in which they
made records of the number, name of
maker, and kind of watches cleaned or re-
paired by them; that Mr.. Parmenter, his
partner, was the watch repairer and that
1t was a part of his business TO make such
records that he made the records con-
corning this watch in the regular course of
business, and that he had since died. The
states attorney then offered these entries in
evidence, TO which the counsel foi the re-
spondent objected. The court ovcr-rulcd
the objection and admitted the evidence.
Two entries were read by the witness, one
under date of Dec. II, 1871 "Mrs. Freeze,
gold anchor, Freres (make) No. 56316,
cleaning screw, repairing jewel, $3.50. "
The other January II, 1878: 'Mrs. Freeze
gold anchor, Freres (makc) No. dG316,
cleaning and jewels, $500" To the adj
mission of this evidence the respondent ex-
cepted. On being shown the watch that
the evidence tended TO show was hers, and
that the respondent pledged in Boston, the
witness testified that it corrosponded in
number and name of maker to those re-
cords, and was evidently the watch refer
red to in them.
The prosecution also called on Oliver ].
Cain, who testified that lie was a night
clerk at the Berwick house, and was ac-
quainted with the respondent that he was
at Brandon on the Slh day of June, and
went TO the circus there. The states at
torncy then inquired of him whether he
saw the respondent thee. To this the
counsel for. the respondent objected. The
court overruled the objection and admitted
the evidence. The witness testified that he
went to the circus, in and out dozen
times and was about all the time that he
came home on the midnight tram TO Rut-
land. and went drought the train-the
baggage car and two coachcs-but not the
sleeping car nor any cars back of that, il
there were any, and that lie did not know
whether there were or not, to see if any of
the boys were on the train and that there
were some men on the seats with their hats
over their faces, so he could not see who
they were ; and that he did not see the
excepted.
In the course of the trial the states attor-
ney recalled some witnesses, and asked
permission of the court to examine them
upon some points on which they had not
been examined. The counsel for the re-
spondent objected, on the ground that the
court had not power to permit such further
examination. The court overruled the OBJ
lection and permitted the examination, to
which the respondent excepted. These
witnesses, on such examination, testified to
matters that were material.
To the charge of the court as to what
would be proof beyond reasonable doubt,
as to what would constitute robbery, and
as to the sufliciency of the proof to war
rant conviction, the respondent excepted.
THE PETITION.
The counsel then read the petition of the
respondent for new trial. based on the
grounds that since his trial in the county
court he has discovered new and material
testimony in his favor, which went to show
that he was in Brandon on Monday, the
day before the morning when the murder
was discovered that he came from Bran
don to Rutland on the midnight train
which arrived in Rutland at about one
o'clock Tuesday morning F; that another
man was seen at Mrs. Freezes house late
Monday night ; also setting forth that the
petitioner was without means, that he has
been incarcerated in Jail since his arrest
and, therefore, been unable to assist his
counsel in preparing his defense, and had
been unable to prove his whereabouts at
the time the murder is alleged to have
taken place.
The counsel then read the following
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH WHITE:
Reside in Rutland aud work for Thomas
Ross knew John p. Phair and boarded
with him at the Berwick House was at
Brandon on Monday June Sth and saw
Phair on the circus ground there he was
about twenty feet from me / did not
speak with him saw him twice after
NuiuS III thc toNH spohc W tuC Sll Win
me, who was from the Berwick House,
and said to her, "there is boarder from
the Berwick House drove to Brandon
in a team and came back in the evening
saw Phair after the p. m. train had left
Brandon for Rutland l told Oliver j,
Cain that saw Phair at Brandon, a few
days afterwards that night after one
o'clock saw a light in Phairs room al
the Berwick House and saw person in
the room which think was Phar
could see Phair's room window from where
stood in the hall it was after time fol
the midnight train to arrive remember
heard thc.town clock strike one about
that time.
| AFFIDAVIT OF CHAs. A. LEAyITT.
Reside in Rutland and work in chail
| factory my father lives in Boston camt