Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1877-05-11

A REVIEW OF THE CAsE-REAsoNs FOR
GRANTING A SECOND RETRIEVE.

A press dispatch from st. Johnsbury, un-
der date Of the Sd inst, says that Governor
Farbanks's purpose in granting John p.
Phaira reprieve until the first Friday Of
April, 1879, is to give HIM an opportunity
TO make application TO the Supreme Court
for new trial on the ground of newly dis
covered evidence. Under the existing
statute the timo within which petition for
new trial on this ground can be brought
is limited TO two years from the rendition
of the original judgment, which expired
in Phair's case in February last. Relief in
this direction can, therefore, only be af-
rorded him by special act of legislation ex-
tending the time. The next Legislature
does not convene until the first Wednesday
Of October, A. D., 1873, hence the necessity
of granting so long repTieve. A petition
for new trial in Phars case, If brought
in Rutland county, could not be brought
until the session Of the Supreme court in
that county for the year 1870, which begins
January 20.
The action of Governor Fairbanks in
granting this second reprieve is consistent
with his views of the power vested in the
Executive by the Constitution, as stated / n
his letter to Phair denying an application
for reprieve, which 1t will be remem bered
power of pardon and reprieve were not
lodged in the Executive TO be exercised ca
prciOusly, but on good and substantial
ground not TO override the courts and de-
feat the ends Of justice, but only in further
ance of those ends.
Phar's case, as now presented, seems TO
come clearly within that class of cases in
which the Executive interference Is not on
ly justified, but is demanded. II is not
necessary that Phar's innocence should be
established-it is sufficient If reasonable
doubt he raised as to his guilt. This is the
test to be applied by the Supreme Court in
granting or denying the application for a
new trial. The newly discovered evidence
is such, if 1t can stand the scrutiny Of judi.
cial investigation, as 10 raise such doubt.
A REVIEW OF THE CASE.
In order TO see the precise bearing of the
new evidence upon the case, it is necessary
TO state somewhat briefly some of the lead
ing points established by the prosecution
on trial. 1t was established that Mrs.
Frieze was murdered on the night of June
s or OH the morning of June in her house
in the extreme outskirts Of the village of
Rutland that her house was discovered TO
be on fire about halfpa six on the morn
ing of June O.; that some person on the af-
ternoon of said day left in pawn with divers
pawnbroke rs in Boston several articles be-
Ion ging TO the murdered woman and sold
them. 1t was impossibleto account for the
articles being in Boston at the time they
were pawned unless they were taken there
on morning train which left Rutland at
$3.50 A. NJ. Phair was on that train.
1t was proven that on June 10, at 10
o'clock A. M, some person left in pawn
with James G. Pierce at % Howard street,
a shawl and opera glass, conceded to have
been the property of the murdered woman.
This person took the shawl from a valise
similar 10 the one Phair had with him on
this journey. He said the articles belong
ed 10 lady al the Adams House who want
ed ten dollars 10 get home with. He signed
pawn contract "E. +. Smith, ST. Adams,
Vermc MT" which was lett with Pierce and
was put in evidence.
On June 9, at about o'clock p. NJ, a man
registered himself at The Adams House as
"E. +. Smith, st. Adams, w." and was
assigned room No. 81; was seen by the
clerk at about Ten O'Clock in the evening,
and occupied his room that night. A half
shawl, conceded TO have been the property
of Mrs. Frieze, was left by him in his room.
The name of L. +. Smith appears the Sec
Ouu ltSlStIhtiOu lOE TEA, luOuRu luti6 were
some thirty entries subsequent to his on
that day.
Other leading circumstances and evidence
which seemed TO connect Phair with the
murder are briefly as follows: He had been
quite intimate with Mrs. Frieze for some
little time prior to the murder-drove with
her 10 Castleton on the Thursday and took
her 10 a circus on the Saturday Immediate
ly preceding her murder, was seen going
from the direction of her house and within
GO rods of ii on Sunday morning at seven
O'Clock. On trial he was unable to salts
iactOrily account for himself from Sum
day night prior to the murder until ten
minutes of four O'Clock of the morning
when the house was burned. But on mo-
ton for new trial he did show himself at
Brandon on Monday attending a circus and
10 have returned TO Rutland on the mid
night train. There was evidence tending
TO show that his bed at the Berwick House
was not occupied on Saturday or Sunday
or Monday night. Four witnesses from
Boston were produced who with more or
less posiliveness Unidentified Phair as the
man whom they saw in Boston, who pawn
ed aud sold the articles formerly belonging
TO Mrs. Frieze. Three OF these were pawn
brokers.
The clerk of the Adams House testifies
that he looked like the man who registered
his name L. +. Smith-tbat he thought he
was the man, but would not swear positive
ly, and described his dress before seeing
him at Rutland, which correspondent with
the dress worn by Phair that day also his
general appearance, which applied well 10
Phair; after Phair's arrest he was request
ed 10 write his name, also L. +. Smith, st.
Adams, VT; he did SO; these signatures
we're put in evidence together with the
Adams House register and the pawn con-
tract, and the testimony of experts was
that beyond doubt they were all written by
the same hand.
On the evening of June 10 he purchased
ticket from Boston 10 Vergennes, his for
mer home; at Fitchburg was shown by an
acquaintance paper containing an account
Of The murder, and conversed with him
concerning it some little time. The same
person testifies to seeing a small roll of
bank bllsin his possession at Keene, where
he offered him fifty cents to get lunch,
which Phair took from wallet. AT Cut
tingsville when arrested no wallet was
found on his person and no money except
$685., which was in his vest pocket he
then said he had not heard of the murder;
aftetward when questioned admitted that
be had seen the account in the paper but
had forgotten 1t.
Pnair laid he had been to Providence to
get work. 1t was shown that he had told
several persons he was going elsewhere
that he wanted lighter work, and by one
witness that he intended 10 get work in
screw factory-also that when he reached
Boston he went directly across the city to
the Providence depot. He has always stat
ed that he went to Providence-that he
there, when on his way 10 the screw iacto-
ry, met men whom he recognized as work
inRmen, and inquired of them, but was
told thai the corporation were discharging
some of their employees, was discouraged
and turned back ill he came 10 lodging
house where he lodged, and took his meals
AT restaurant near by. Detectives work.
ing for tha rewarl went 10 Providence.
having description of localities and men
met there by Phair, but testified that they
could find no such places or men. One of
Phair's counsel was also there for few