Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-04-05

testimony, but Virgins statement a. 10 the at.
tempted bribery stirred him deeply lie was toy
hg with pcnholder when Wiggin began, and
without waitine 10 drop Il, he brought his right
fst 10 his face. md sat leaning on his right elbow.
booking stinighi At wiggin. lie apparently moved
not a single muscle during Virgins entire state
mcnt A. soon MS the witness was through, he
turned tn his counsel aud had an earnest consnltn-
ton with him of SOME minutes duration Mr.
Gleason then began persistent cross-cxaminaiion
of the witness endoayodng 10 elicit from him that
the respondent had suhlueniY explained this at
tempted bribery away The witness testified that
the next morning after the arrest, the respondent
told him that his offer " settlement on Sunday
was ON account " row No had got into few
nights before in which he had injured party.
and that be supposed he Was arrested Ion that,
and be wanted TO settle IT, Ia response to Mr.
Dillingham; the v,nes. said, that at the time be-
and Miles were in The hack together, Miles .aid
T" II ten thousand dollars Z. any ohic.t 20 you,
say So"
rur srArE nrsrs
Nr Dillingham; announced that the pfosocu-
tiou would offer no more testimony at iiat time
Mr. Gleason said that he would prefer not to 90
on then, and would Ike nm adjournment tin the
next morning
No prFrNoE
Upon The coming in Of the court, Thursday
morning, Mr. Gleason informed the court that the
respondent would put in no evidence, and would
be willing to submit the case TO tie Jury without
argument lie reviewed the proceedings in the
case since the commencement Of the term, aud
claimed that il was great hardship 10 the re-
spondcnt 10 bc forced to trial In the situation he
was csaid that he wished to correct any i'm
preston which may have gone abroad in refer
euce to him, or his partner Mr. Field, charging
Mr. Somerilie with betrayal of his trust, aud
said that they made no such charge that Mr.
Somerille claimed that he bad been misiniomed
by Mr.. Dillingham; as to the time when the case
would be tried that Mr. Dillingham; had stated
to him that it would be the second week in April,
and that the assignment for the last OF March
had taken him by surprise. lie said that Miles
desired him to state that lie was perfectly satis-
fled that he could have fair trial in this county,
and Il he had preferred, he would desire no better
tribunal than a Washington County Court.
Mr Dillingham; argued that the respondent had
had every facility for getting ready for trial re-
marked that, In his opinion, MIR Somcr,illc, in
stead Of being sluggish had been very energetic,
and called the attention of the court to the fact
that he was working for the respondent last sat
urday, having administered the oath to ono OF
Mr. Fields afndayts lie stamped Mr. Somer-
ville's statement, as to misrepresentation on his
part, as regarded the anHignmcnt OF the ease. as
a lie, and utterly denied IT,
Judge Redfcld briefly ,indicatod the action Of
In ur,lf f.. fru1 nd aufI
that he knew that the court had been lenient with
him, under the circumstances; that his want Of
preparation. II it existed. was his own fault, and
that with learned counsel in Vermont, Ike Mr.
Edmnster it was his own fault II nothing had
been done. lie said that, If the respondent had
10 the court that he lacked legal ad-
vice, able counsel would have been assigned him;
but nothing Of this kind had been done Neither
side wishing to argue the case Judge Redfelddc-
liyered the
OtAHGf of rnE COURT.
GouD,ra qf Ne Jiup This respondent is
charged By the Indictment Of the Grand Jury Of
this county with ihe crime of burglary The in
dictment sets ont with the necessary legal detail
that on the night of the 9th Of July, 1875, this
spondent broke and entered a certain banking
house in the town Of Barre, in this county, for the
purpose Of stealing money and other property
The preliminary incidents such as proving that
there was such a bank in existence, doing bust
ness under the laws Of the United States have
been proved, by producing the certificate from the
Comptroller Of the Currency, who had the power,
under the laws Of Congress, to give this associa-
ton the right 10 do a banking business As a
matter Of law, We say that has been proven, and
that this building, II we believe the testimony Of
Mr. King was in the occupation Of this banking
association, under lease giving them the rights
Of ownership. Then you come to the first ques-
ton Was such q burglary as breaking into this
bank, in tie night time for the purpose Of steal
ing plunder--was such an act performed, such
a crime committed? You have the testi-
mony of Mr. Kng-and Curey, who says he
was there Mr. Mhitcomb and Mr. Jackson
These men were called up, went to the building,
and discovered that the bank had been broken
into, aud found certain " the implements that
have been put into the case You have the tes-
timony Of Mr. c. l. Jackson, the constable, that he
followed certain tracks to New Hampshire, and
found in stable two-horse team, which Mr.
Dudley testiies was his and you have heard the
testimony Of Curley, that they had been in the
standing, and the track led from
there on 70 the Orange road These are incidents
The main testimony A. to there being robbery
and an entering by force, Is that Of Mr. King
Every necessary fact Of there being robbery
must he proved by what Is called full evidence
that is such evidence as convinces your judgment
beyond reasonable douht-any we founded
doubt Of the truth Of the charge. II you find that
some person or persons entered this bank and did
the act that MIR. King speaks of, then you viii
have no doubt that the crime was committed by
fIu In
inquiry, whether this respondent aided and AS
sisted in that crime whether he partook In break
ing aud entering that bank had any connection
or agency with II at the time spoken Of by Mr..
King Whether he was the leader or simply as
sisted in this act Of burglary, all were principals
they were all criminal alike. II this respondent
had ANYTHING to do with it, II is not material
whether he was principal or one OF the lesser
agents. That being this luain question: you
will scrutu7c all the evidence minutely, YOU
will take each witness, examine carefully how
they support each other. You will assume IN
the start that this respondent stands, although
stranger with the common presumption OF inno-
cence that attaches 10 all men he Is presumed 10
be innocent. and has the ordinary and common
presumption in his favor that attaches to other
men. lou will take the testimony, carefully conf
pare IT, and see whether the different witnesses
are roconcabc, or whether they are antagohisllc
and unnatural, 80 that the entire testimony does
not commend itself to your Judgment as truth
You have first the testimony Of Peter Alphonsos
Curev who testifes that he was there, one Of the
men who committed this crime, You have his
relation Of the manner and method, and the sur
rounding incidents TIL he lcaped from the ears,
as he saws on the Boston, Concord Montreal
road, near Rumney, n. H. You have also TO con
slider that Curley was partaker In this crime,
and 50 far as that dimnshes from the weight of
his evidence You are TO consider when partalser
In crime comes out and casts the burden ana
consequences Of the crime upon another, You are
to consider the inducements that led him 70 this
disclosure, and the benefit that may result from
IL 10 him So that, ~ matter of law, we say
to YOU that q paTtakcT In crime-p0fcepS crip-
ini as II Il cnlled-is not sufficient alone and un-
supported in his testimony, 10 convict person OF
a crime-that IL, In law, II Is In some degrees
diminished from AN ordinary witness; II u I'M
peached Ia some measure and In some degree
necessarily from his relation TO the crime, aud Is
not sufficient alone uncorrobomted by any cir
cunlstances or any other testimony, 10 convict
the prisoner A jury, in all sach cases, must
carefully weigh the stOry-its incidents and see
whether il be supported by that OF other wit
nesses, or whether Il be alone, and Unsupported.
II Is for the jury to say under all the circumstances
In this case whether the testimony Of Curley,
weighed with the other testimony, produces,
in your minds a belief beyond u reasonable
doubt that his statement Is substantially true.
The government in support OF this narrative,
give history Of the course uf these persons with
the hills, across the Connecticut river, 10 the town
OF Rumney, " H. Then they say that certain cloth
ing-twO coats and iack-kniie that belonged
to Mr.. King, were abstncted and carried away
and that this property was found 80 deposited as
10 he connected with the persons that left the
liarre church-yard aud went easterly 10 Rumney
That fact is Ia be considered. Whether these
PARTIES that left Barre that night and went out OF
the churcl-yard where these horses had been con-
tined, wcre the persons and the team who carried