Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1879-02-12

And the uurdcrer win be tNecn,ed
az the i,h ~ Next April.
NJ Nv Idence Furnishing - Reasons
able Doubt of isis Guilt.
RUTLAND, W., FRn, 5.-Thc opinion
OF Chef Justice Plcrpont ON the petition
OF John =. PhaIr was rendered this AFTER
noon. II Is Substantially us followsi-
We have received and considered every
thing that was shown before the jury on
the trial At which he was convicted, every
thing presented on his former petition for
new trial, everything before the Legls-
laturc offered then A. reason for enact
Ing the law under which the petition Is
made and all the new evidence procured
for this hearing, We refer to this for
the purpose Of saying that the course we
have taken In this case Is not precedent
for future applications Of this character
The goods were disposed Of IN Boston,
The party transporting these goods TO
Boston and then disposlng OF them muir
dered Mrs. Frlezc. That parry must have
left Rutland on the morning OF the 7th OF
June. When the fact Is established who
took the property to Boston, you settle
who committed the murder. The prop
erty disposed Of to the Boston pawn
brokers aud the half shawl at the Adams
House was coniesscdly that Of Mrs Frieze'
All the parties who received the property
In Boston testify with more or less posit-
iveness that Phair was the man. When
attention was called to the fact Of the
murder In u few days and before the
means of Identification had passed out OF
their minds, and even If they could identi-
~ man with whom they had dealings,
the circumstances were such as to render
their identification reliable. They all
testify with more or less positivenesJ
that that man was Phair. There Is always
more or less doubt when fact depends
upon human recollection. Their. Is always
liability of mistakes when there Is but one
mans unaidcd recollection, but when
several persons concur, who have seen
the same man at different times and under
different circumstances, this concurrence
strengthens the convictions that they are
right and removes doubt; when there Is
also the handwriting on the pawn ticket,
where the name of T. +. Smith Is signed,
and the same name on the hotel register,
and the same name written by Phair: we
have these names written under different
circumstances, with different 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 register and the name writ
ten by Phair in Jail, and supplement that
by the testimony Of the person who testi-
fed to seeing him and receiving of him
the property, we have the fact establish
ed that Phair was the man who disposed
of this property in Boston as nearly
demonstrated as q demonstration can be
made by combination Of circumstances
and human testimony. That Phair went
to Boston on that 4 o'clock train is con-
coded. He claims he did not stop In Bos-
ton. 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 Providence -? There is
evidence tending to show that he went to
one depot from the other in Boston,
There is no evidence from any person
who testifles to seeing Phair from the
time he was left by the Stewards at the
Providence depot until he was seen on
the train on the 10th of June, coming this
way, unless he was the L. +. Smith who
stayed at the Adams House. His counsel
have been wholly unable to find any man
in Providence who has any recollection OF
him. Nothing is shown but what Phair
had been in Providence before. At that
time he had sister living there. He did
not 70 to see her this time, but no one
testiaes 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
in it. Now, Phair was there soon after
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 which he now gives
and would have omitted all mention Of the
soldiers monument, that was there In
1874, but was not there then. His de-
scription emitting that goes to show that
he was describing i. as it was before, aud
shows that he was there years, before
His description Of what he did and where
he went In Providence had but little
weight rs bearing upon bis being in Bos.