The Portland daily press., 1879-02-03
superior Court.

JANUARY CRIMINAL TERM, 1879, BoNNEY, j..
PRESIDING.
SATURDAY John Terney peaded guilty to
breaking and enteriog the office of j. ". Deering
and the larceny of field glass. Sentenced to three
years in the States pIison.
VIM Tobey pleaded guilty to larceny from the Of
flee of James II. Eaton and Jefferson c. Coolidge
and was sentenced TO two years in States prison
Upon another indictment for an attempt to break
and enter the store Of Andrew Hawes, he was sen.
fenced to year in States prison. to take place
the expiration of the former sentence
The of State Charles E. Prescott, convict
ed OF the murder of Harry Williams, at the SepIem-
Der term, was taken up. Three motions have beer
filed in the to ret aside the verdict The first
on the ground that the verdict against evidence
the second, on the ground that Moses Waterhnuse
Of the jurors expressed opinions to the guilt
of the accused prior to the empauneiment of the
jury; the third motion was on the ground of newly
discovered evidence, but thls was abandoned
Cot A. W. radbury made an able and lengthy ar
gument in support Of the motions.
Among other grounds in support of the first mo-
ton he clai med
1. There is no evidence of malice aforethought,
which be found in order to justify verdict of
murder in the first deg ee.
2. The evidence negatives the theory OF malice
atorehought showing, as 1t does. on both sides OF
gentle disposition. On the other band Williams was
renegade Iom his native country because of crime.
anu naa lnVegned the prlsone 1n'o thet aeu pei
misconduct, aud was proven to be a man of violent
and Quarresome disposition The character OF the
deceased TO- violence has much to do with determin-
ing be degree of the homicide.
g. 1t is Inconsistent to assign the motive of robbery
as the cause of he deed, as Williams was man
possessed of large sums of n oney-he was never
known to have had at any one time Lore than ten
dollars.
These are the principal points Upon which the ar
guIneDt was based. There were many citations Of
law relating to the duties of jurors. all OF which tend
ed to show that in case it could be made to appear
that ground sufficient for challenge at the time Of
empanneling ajury, discovered after the trial, was
sufficient to demand a rehearing OF the cause
In reply ex-County Attorney Libby maintained
that none OF the above allegations sustained.
he denied that Prescots story of the homicide was
true. and cited evidence in support of the imposs
blty of such circumstances appeared in his test-
moDy being correct. He presented ten different rea-
sons for disbelieving Prescott's testimony. all of
which were given in his argument at the trial. He
maintained that the verdict not against the charge
of the Judge, as the charge clearly define the ele
of the offence set forth in the Indictment and
the distinguishing features OF the different degrees of
homicide and left to the jury to determine the facts,
stating perspcuousy the facts necessary to oe found
by them in order to make the case one Of murder.
No jury could misunderstood the charge far as it
dealt with the law of the and t1r the ver-
dict finding OF facts it is the deliberate judgment
ofthe only tribunal who has power to determine
them, and is final.
Mr.. Libby claimed that the evidence as to the con-
versaton of Mr.. Waterhouse, of the jurors pre-
vous TO the empauneling Of the jury, did not sup
port the cha ges in the adavits, and if it had been
known al the trial would not have been ground tor
acbsleDge for cause.
The arguments were necessarily lengthy, and the
caring occupied nearly seven hours Judge Bonney
will render his decision sometime during this month
Court will come in Monday morning and the doch-
called after which the criminal term will be ad-
journed