The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-01
T7aE $4,000 REWARD.
The Arbitration in Regard 10 It's
Disposal.


Disposal.
The hearing in the matter of the disposal
of the reward of 50 500, offered by the
selectmen of the town for the arrest and
conviction of the murderer of Mrs. Ann
Freeze was begun on Saturday morning at
the Office of Prout, Simons & Walker,
before Warren II Smith, Esq, rs arb-
traitor. The case, as it is presented, has
many sides, involving the testimony of
large number of persons, the taking OF
evidence vouminous in quantity and some
what contradictory IN quality, and the re-
tanning of nearly every attorney in Rut-
land as counsel for the parties to the case.
The claimants who have thus far presented
themselves, number nine-with several
back towns yet TO hear from-whle there
are two or three more persons who, we I'M
derstand are pushing their claims for
I" finger in the pie" Were we to attempt
to give even brief outline Of all the points
that have cropped out in the case, even
thus far, supplement to this edition would
be necessary. We therefore must be con-
tent to give but small picture, containing
the parties TO the controversy and, rs
briefly as possible, a statement Of their
claims and the foundations for the same as
far as have been developed.
The claimants for the reward are as fol-
lows, viz George w. Crawford, chief of
police, who arrested john y. Phair; Chas.
II. Matthews, policeman, who was in
company with Crawford at the time of the
arrest jeremiah c. Thornton and n. S.
Stcarns, who went to Boston after the ar
rest and secured the goods which were so
material in the conviction of Phair rs the
murderer Myer Abrams of Boston, at
whose pawnshop was found the watch and
chain, of the murdered woman NJ. X.
Hotchkiss, former proprietor of the Der
wick House, where Phar boarded previous
to the murder Oliver J. Cain, an en-
ploye at the hotel at that time c. L.
Richardson, livery stable keeper at that
time and at present proprietor OF the Ber-
wick House Cephas L. Stone, an ac-
| qlaintanCc OF Phalr $.
The counsel in the case include Messrs.
n. p. Simons, attorney for Thornton and
Stearns Geo. E. Lawrence, counsel for
Crawford and Matthews w. c. Dunton,
counsel for N. X. llotchkiss L. w. Red
ington, for Myer Abrams Geo. II. Owen,
for o. j. Cain Henry Hall for Cephas E.
Stone.
The chief controversy so far developed
seems to be between Messrs. Crawford and
Matthews on the one side, and Me, srs.
Thornton and Stearns on the other. These
men being more nearly identified with the
arrest and conviction of Phair the princi-
pal interest in the case clngs to them and
to their individual testimony and claims.
The testimony Of Mr. Crawford is to the
effect that an agreement was made between
himself and Mr.. Matthews at the time the
arrest was made, that they should equally
share the reward; that the next day or two
he Crawford made an arrangement with
Mr.. Thornton to 60 to Boston and trace
out the clue to the conviction of Phair as
the murderer, said Thornton to have one
third of the reward that he Crawford
had nothing to do with hiring or arranging
= with Mr.. Stearns to accompany Mr. Thorn
! ton to Boston and had no conversation
: with him as to the reward; that he though
= from the outset that Phair was the muir
derer His testimony is corroborated BY
e Mr.. Matthews.
s Mr.. Thornton testifies. and his testmon,
is corroborated by Mr.. Stearns, that M
arrangement was made as the one sworn t
by Crawford, but that Crawford came 4
him and wished him to take the matte
' into his own hands, as he Crawford ha
If no money to prosecute the search and cou
n not leave his business here as night police
n man. that Crawford did not tell him ,ha
n Matthews was to have any share in the re
a ward until several weeks after the propert
O had been recovered that Crawford ha
0 offered to give up his interest in the rewar
to him for note of $3.50, which the wi
n ness held against him. Both Thornton an
"a Stearns also testify that they spent som
two months or more in the search for til
II goods the accumulation of evidence an
II other business pertaining to the convctio
20 of Phair, and that Crawford and Matthew
ID had but little, If anything, to do with I'll
case after the arrest. They are PARTIAL
. corroborated in their testimony, to that ei
u feet, by Martin G. Eyerts, the grand jurC
lr who brought the complaint against Pha
and who had, as it appeared in the eros
AZ N.l
~ Sirens in an official capacity but also Q
he and in prosecuting their CLAIMS against Il
a state for fees and expenses paid out /
IN them.
1t appears, therefore, that the statemen
Il of Messrs. Crawford and Thornton diff
ut widely In quite an important particul
and the same naturally causes some feelir
a., during the hearing. This is, however, n
~ the only controversy between the clair
NJ ants-as might be supposed from the
numbers and the nature of their CLAIM
"a, presented.
iei The testimony produced by NJ.
Or HotchlSlss is for the purpose OF shown
Il. that he was the first to suspect Phair
ly. being the murderer and that he first set I
ii. officers upon his track. Being the Ian
lord of the Berwick House, where Phi
the boarded, it is claimed that he had superi
facilities for knowing Phair and for 81
:. pecting his movements. lie produt
i"' Messrs. Judah Dana, Ben X. Chase, j.
md Cook and Chester Kingsley as witnesses
prove that, on the morning of the day
the fire and murder, he was known TO hs
declared his suspicious and to have tC
Mr.. Crawford the foundation for them.
The evidence for the other claimal
ii. have not as yet been produced, conseque
ly the nature of their claims cannot be W