Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-03-29

wished TO bring to Montpelier In the respondents
behalf Among the names of the witnesses re-
cited by Mr. Sometsille Ia his first aildasit, was
Mr. Mckennas, and u all these siNty named he
was the only one claimed to bc SICK some " the
Witnesses for the prosecution were .ick, but he
asked for no indulgence that score. lie re
ferrcd to the statement BY Mr. Held that he had
agreed to q continuance Of the case last iall and
said that he had had no conversation with
Mr. Soinerye on that subject Instead of
Mr.. SoneNe having been recrcant 10 his
clients interests, Il seemed TO him that he had
been unusually dngcnt even a. late ~ last
Friday he had rccei, ed letter from Mr. som
erYille asking for % continuance Of the case
in reply to which be had iclegmIhed n refu-
sal. lie argued that il was unreasonable to
suppose that none out Of hundred and fifty wit
nesses could be got here. II they didn't come, it
was because there was no such testimony as had
been alleged. lie alluded to the attempt at
cape recently made by the respondent, and as
serted that he beloved this was the defence relied
in this case. Calling the court attention 10 the
great difficulty with which the prosecution had
procured the attendance Of witnesses, many Of
whom live out Of the state he argued that the re-
spondent had had every legal privilege TO which he
was entitled lie had had other counsel besides
MIR Somerville, men familiar with the statute OF
Vermont, and his recrcancy was NJ reason for nm
entire failure Of his part
Mr.. fwF.D followed Tor the state lie said that
the respondent was stranger In Vermont and
the prosecution did not want he should have any
trial except an impartial one; he should be
ashamed for the history Of the state, to have it
otherwise The question before the couri was
whether this application for continuance VAS sin
cere. Mir fifeld dismissed the anidayiis. aud
claimed that they were of M effect because they
did not comply with the rule OF cour; requiring
the name Of the witnesses which are Ia be set out
in the affidavit, aud the testimony expected VI
them. Referring particularly to McKennas case,
he argued that he had given no such evidence as
had been claimed in the aAlda,its because II he
had, why did they not produce his anidaSit in
court? Mr Field had seen him aud conyersed
with him, aud any lawyermust know that Mckcn-
mas own AFFIDAVIT, Ms to his testimony, was worth
dozen Others. lie then discussed the question Of
injustice to the respondent which had been raised
and claimed that the state and public have rights
AS well a. the respondent, that the maintenance
Of law required that cases Of this magnitude
should be tried without delay, and that the re-
spondent was 10 blame himself II defence has
not been prepared II McKenna was sick now OF
disease Of the spinal marrow, what was to pre-
vent him being sick next term ? II the sickness
Of one witness ont Of one hundred aud fifty all to
the same point-an 1li5i-was to secure contin-
uancc Of the case thi. term why should it not the
next and the next, forever? lie closed by argu-
ing that this whole move for a continuance was
iuggleiy and a cheat, aud demanding that the
! ri
MIR GLEASON closed for the respondent lie
said no regretted the necessity OF this applica-
ton more than the respondent but he had been
forced to do it by the defenselcss condition in
which Mr.. Sonersilles betrayal Of his trust had
left him. and being unwilling 10 come into court
and plead guilty TO an offence uf which he WAS
innocent, he at the same time did not wish TO be
found guilty because he had no opportunity to
prepare his defence lie enlarged particularly ia
regard to Mr. SomeHilles trcachcry and gem
orally ampihed and extended the line oi argument
followed by Mr. Field
JrpHT RfnFELp delivered the opinion Of the
court lie said that 1t was Of more Importance to
the people Of the state that the respondent should
have fair and impartial trial, than that he should
be convicted. ior himself he should have been
glad II the venue had been changed but such had
not been the decision Of the court, and he had no
doubt that the people OF this county could try the
respondent As fairly and nparaily as the people
of any other county in the state, or the country.
lie reviewed the arguments made by the respond
ents counsel, and seemed to think that, even by
their own statement, the respondent himself had
shown want Of diligence in his preparation lie
considered that the objection to the force of the
ahidavits made by the prosecution were valid and
so were the points raised as to the employment OF
counsel in Vermont lie found that sufficient
cause had not been shown for continuance, and
| Overrued the motion