The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1876-12-28
nr,.lsaro, Il. n, eorRr.

Tie case q Charles II, Cole. on ne 10.
disimsn, or barpjar Carueyss milt WAS
saaela3ra Ass wess lie iury sfter heing
oai twtals-four boar. bringing ma YER
alei u not guilty Tbs testimony iov To
prosec1lion reHcd slnosi entirely on tie
statements q ihs two eouiedsrates, Eta.
gerald and Coffee The j1dFe charged
tbe jary lhai oonyiesisn oa9ht not to iol-
low from The testimony Of couiederAles
alone, unless there were other corrober-
sling eirenms apees Sufficient % remove
The doubts which must slWays mere Or
less Gaecl toe testimony Of pdFtiocps
rrImian. which circumstances. 10 this
case seemed to be wanting. The case for
the defendant WAS managed BY J W.
Beebe II Manchester, who made strong
appeal for The respondent sud added to
his growing reputation AZ 5 lawyer
The grand Jury, 81 their recent session,
presented a strong Indictment against the
Bennington court house and jail. which
were butl six years nKo aud have cost
TIC county $4,000 The points ia the
indictment urc That The ventilation Is
bad The pipes from the stoves carry the
gAs aud smoke ialo the hollow space be.
tween The walls instead OF intn the outer
air; that small bottles Of liqnor and tools
eau be passed into The jail 10 the prison
es from window outside; aud that
there Il but single avenue OF escape for
the prisoners Ia case OF IRE which could
DO EASILY cut OIL by the deyouriug ele-
ment, aud that the jail has not sufficient
capacity trp, ~ darge a number OF pris.
onrrs as sone.imes arc sent here ior safe
keeping
COdrsty to expectation. the case OF
Iisoyps Mss uext tAkeu up. lie WAS tried
Oh The indictment Tor blowing up llol-
ton's housr. Tho evidence against him,
Ike tha, IN TIDE case OF Cole, was chiefly
that Of the conlederates, Fitzgerald aud
Coffee, thong there WAS, in addition, the
fact lhat Tie powder used came from bis
store. The Judge made the following
points ia the charge TO the jury:
The Indictment contains two counts,
and the question fret is, Has the larger
crime been committed - that is, an AS
sault with dangerous weapon with the
intent 10 kla aud murder II the powder
was 50 placed and exploded that 1t was
/ intended To, aud might reasonably have
been expected to, reach the plaintiffs, this
would constitute an assault. IL is not a
question oi property. As TO being armed
| with u dangerous weapon, weapon means
means TO do violence with, and II a keg
OF powder Is commonly supposed TO be a
dangerous weapon, then the person was
SO afnied. Nolestlinony bias been intro
ducnd to show that Cole or Reeves meant
! to kill Mr.. llolton, You will therefore
Judge the intent by the act ITSELF and this
must be made out beyond reasonable
doubt. The respondent Is 10 be consid.
cred the same us If he had gone aud done
| the Iced himself if he furnished the pow
der or otherwise melted the act to be
done. The confession OF Fitzgerald must
| be taken With caution, aud weight given
10 1t only as he is corroberatcd, aud this
confederation need not be full, bat only
on some material points. The respondent
should not be convicted upon Fitzg erald's
testimony alone. The testimony cOrrOb.
orative OF FilZgerald's States evidence
| in this case comes from both sides. For
| instance, il is conceded that Reeves had
| the powder, and Cole knew where it WAS
| Kept aud that 1t was kept in the same
place Fitzgerald says Cole went to get IL;
| then they were IN Reeves saloon at or
about the time Fitzgerald says the con.
spiracy was formed The conspiracy be-
tween these meiI Is denied, TO be sure,
but they were there Mt the time, and
could hayc entered into ii il they SO de-
sired, according to the respondents tes-
| timony. Coles evidence is to be taken
with caution AS TO the motives, 1t is
claimed that the respondent WAS engaged
in the sale Of Intoxicating liquor, and
| that liollon and others were trying to
stop such illegal sale, This must be con-
sidcred in the light as TO whether Reeves
wanted or would have been glad to have
had these crimes committed TO intimidate
| the liquor raiders. In this case the ball
ance of evidence must be made from the
character of the evidence, not from its
numerical strength.
In this case, after being out long
time, the jury failed to agree. The coun-
sci were nearly the same as in the case Of
Cole.