The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-02
THE REWARD ARBITRATION.
Arguments of Counsel.

placed in the hands of the arbitrator, War
rem II. Smith, ESQ.,, for decision. The
evidence was continued through the fore
noon and into the afternoon, being the
testimony brought by Myer Abrams and
Oliver j. Cain as claimants, and also some
additional testimony on the part of Craw-
ford and Matthews.
The claims of Abrams and Cain were to
the effect as briefly outlined in our last is
sue, was brief in itself and strictly to the
point.
Henry Hall, counsel for Cephas f.
Stone, appeared and withdrew the claim of
his client. He also made known his de-
cision that no claim would I've made by
John @. Ryan or VIM. II. Preston for any
portion of the reward. Mr.. Preston was
however called as witness on the part of
Messrs. Crawford and Matthews, and testi-
fed as to the fact that Phair rode with him
to Boston on the early morning train, the
day of the murder that the witness heard
of the murder that night, bnt did not COM
municate the fact OF Phair's trip to Boston
until the next night, and then told Clark
T. Richardson and J. c. Thornton, the lat
ter of whom took down said statement in
writing.
The arguments of the counsel were some
what brief and we give below an abstract
of the principal points made by each. The
first argument made was by Geo. E. Law
renee, ESQ.,, counsel for Messrs. Thornton
and Stearns.
ARGUMENT OF MIR. LAWRENCE.
The counsel considered in the outset that
the claims, outside of those made by his
clients and by Crawford and Matthews,
had no bearing on this case. The testimony
had shown that Crawford suspected Phair,
as early as Tuesday afternoon, to be the
murderer; that on the arrest of Phair he
got from him where he had been that he
goes to Thornton and asks him to go tn
Boston and track out the movements of
Phair, as Thornton had the money and time
to spare and he had not As to the alleged
arrangement between Thornton and Craw-
ford it did not look reasonable that Craw-
ford would release his claim to the reward
or place himself at the mercy of Thornton.
The circumstances had shown that Craw-
ford never offered to sell out his right to
the rev ard. The counsel then argued that
Crawford and Matthews had done the most
to fix the crime upon Phair to he sure
they might Not have expended as much
time or money as some others, but that
was simply their own good fortune. The
court could do no less than give them one
half, while there was no doubt but what
they were legally entitled to two-thirds.
He was followed by N. p Simons. Esq.
counsel for Messrs. Thornton and Stearns
ARGUMENT OF MR.. sIMoNs.
| Outside of two shares, one by Thornton
| and Stearns and another by Crawford and
Matthews, he thought no one else had any
claim to the reward although Mr. IIotch.
| kiss possibly had a shadow. The suspicion,
held by Crawford and hundreds of Others
that Phair was the murderer, no one per-
son had any patent on it grew out from
the fact that Phair had been seen in public
with the murdered woman. Rewards were
not given for the purpose of getting infor-
nation but to insure diligence in making
arrests and looking up the clue towards a
conviction. He considered that simple in
formation had no right to the reward. As
to the claim made by Abrams it came in
the poorest possible grace If he had any
other right to remuneration beyond what
he had already received it was against
Thornton and Stearns He then cited a
New York case, growing out of the rob
berry of the City Bank and the offering OF
reward for recovery of the property. The
opinion of the chancellor was read
and its similarity, with the case under con
sideration, shown. The decision gave the
man, who was the "moving cause in the
arrest of the robbers, the whole of the lie
ward, and excluded altogether the claim:
of the officers who made the arrests anC
that of the servaut-girl who raised the first
suspicion of one of the guilty parties. The
criterion established in the case was to fine
out who were the parties that worked TO
the arrest and conviction with an inten
to claim the reward. This precedent, tn
counsel claimed, disposed of all the claim
III this case except those of his clients anC
of Crawford and Matthews. The claim o
Hotchkiss he did not think was just o
well grounded, and as also making bat
precedent. The case resolved itself, in
legal point of view, into the fact that N
one had any just claim to the reward ex
cept his clients. The arrest was mad
by a lucky hit. After that had bee
made there was no clue against him, unit
Thornton and Stearns found it. 1t too
something of daring and recklessness t
step in at that time and take the risk @
following up the clue the chances wer
ten to one that Thornton and Stears woul
lose their time and throw away the
money. Then the whole conduct of tn
, case, after the arrest, fully affirmed til
statement of Thornton as to the trad
made with rawford--taking the matte
out of his hands altogether He was wi
ling, however, to have it apportionet
I whereas if 1t was brought as a suit again
S the town the claim of Thornton an
Stearns would be the only ole that cou
legally be allowed.
l.. W. Redington, ESQ, then followed
!, a brief argument as counsel for My,
Abrams.
ARGUMENT OF MIR REDINGTON.
, His client he considered stood alone
y his claim. Thornton and Stearns procur,
of him the first clue against Phar as beir
b the murderer and knew they had in the
hands the means of convicting Phai
Abrams also knew that he had it in b
power to convict Phair, and put in b
claim for the reward, refusing at the san
time to take any pay from Stearns al
IS Thornton. The intent of pushing his clai
, for the reward by helping to convict Pha
was fully shown in the case of his clier
which fully came up to the criterit
l. established in the case citedby Mr.. Simon
J. The testimony of Abrams showed co
r clusively that he was not forced to come
Rutland, but that he came tor ty
ID reasons, first, because he thought it W
l. his duty; and second, for the money CO
sdera,lon held out to him. The argume
ne closed with disclaimer against the poT
lar idea entertained that Abrams had
Of right to any reward because he was fro
y, out of town or merely an outsider.
80 The closing argument in the case was
nc George II, Owen, Esq, counsel for Oil
J. Cain.
Al, ARGUMENT OF MIR. OWEN.