St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1879-02-14
Phair Must be Executed.
SYNOPSIS OF CHIEF JUSTICE PIERPoNT'S
DEClS SION.

SYNOPSIS OF CHIEF JUSTICE PIERPoNT's
DECISION.
RUTLAND, W., Feb. 5.-The opinion
of Chief Justice PierpOnt on the petit
ton of John P. Phair was rendered this
afternoon. 1t is substantially as fol
lows:
We have received and considered
everything that was shown before the
jury on the trial at which he was con-
victed, everything before the legisla-
ture, offered them as a reason for enact
ing the law under which the petition is
made, and all the new evidence pIO-
cured for this hearing. We refer to this
for the purpose Ofsaying that the course
we have taken in this case is not pre-
cedent for future applications of this
character. The goods were disposed OF
i'll Boston. The party transporting these
goods to Boston and then dispOsing OF
them murdered Mrs. Frieze. That party
must have left Rutland on the morning
of the 9TH of June. When the fact is es-
tablished who took the property to
Boston, you settle who committed the
murder. The property disposed of to
the Boston pawnbrOkerS and the halt
shawl at the Adams House was confess
eddy that of Mrs. Frleze. All the par
ties who received this property in Bos-
ton testify with more or less positive
ness that Phair was the man. When at
tentiOn was called to the fact of the
murder in Il few days, and before the
means of identification had passed out
of their minds, and if they even could
Identify Il man with whom they had
dealings, the circumstances were such
as to render their Identification reliable.
They all testify with more or less posi-
tiveness that that man was Phair. There
is always more or less doubt when Il
fact depends upon human recollection
There is always liability of mistakes,
when there is out one mans unaided
recollection, but when several persons
concur, who have seen the same man ut
different times and under different cir
cumstances, this concurrence strength
ems the convictions that they are right.
and removes doubt when there is also
the handwriting on the pawn-ticket,
where the name OF Z. f. Smith is signed,
and the same name on the hotel regis
ter, and the same name written by
Phair, we have these names written un-
der different circumstances, with differ
ent objects in view, so far as the writer
was concerned. Comparing these names
so written, no man of intelligence could
come to any other conclusion than that
they were written by the same hand.
When we find such similarity in these
names, written without any reference
to each other, no conclusion can be
reached but what they were written by
the same person. The name on the reg
lister and the name written by Phair in
jail, and supplement that by the testi-
mony OF the person who testified to see
ing him and of receiving of him the
property, we have the fact established
that Phair was the man who disposed
of this property in Boston as nearly
demonstrated as demonstration can be
made by combination of circumstances
and human testimony.
That Phalr went to Boston on the 4
O'Clock train is conceded. He claims be
did not stop in Boston. If Phair went
right through to Providence and did not
stay all night in Boston, he was not the
man who disposed of this property, and
registered at the Adams House. What
is there to show that he went to PrOvi-
dence? There is evidence tending to
show that he went to one depot from
the other in Boston. There is no evil
dence from any other person who testi-
hes to seeing Phair from the time he
was left at the Providence depot until
he was seen on the train on the 10th of
June, coming this way, unless he was
the +. +. Smith who stayed at the Ad
wholly unable to find any man in Provi-
dence who has any recollection of him.
Nothing is shown but what Phair had
been i'll Providence before. At that time
he had sister living there. He did not
go to see her this time, but no one tes
titles that he told them he was there
soon after the war. There is a soldiers
monument standing, which is the most
prominent object of the locality where
he says he stopped. 1t stood where he
would have seen it if he was there. How
natural for him to have described the
locality by this most prominent object
i'll it. Now, if Phair was there soon af-
ter the war and was at that very place
and spent the night in that room and
saw the dog with the collar and other
things which he says he saw, he would
have given the description he now gives
and would have omitted all mention of
the soldiers monument that was there
IN 1874, but was not there then. His
description, emitting that, goes to show
that he was describing it as it was be-
tore, and shows that he was there wears
before. His description of what he did
and where he went in Providence had
out little weight as bearing upon his
oeing in Boston and disposing of these
things.
The testimony most relied on, and
which has done the most to bring the
case mere, is that of Downing. 1t seems
10 us that 1t is important that he should
be able to testify to something that
would be of use to Phair before we
should grant new trial on the testimo
ny. he has not sworn that Phair was
the man he saw on the cars, and we see
no reason to suppose he would swear
10 tnat as fact. All we have, then.
are these indefinite recollections of
LOWING. There is nothing in the form
OF evidence, in this transaction. that
changes the face of what was before the
jury before. ~ =" y
Admitting all to be admissible we
cannot tell what effect it might have on
aJury. All we are called upon to do is