Litchfield enquirer., 1880-04-22
Superior Court.
STATE YS. PAIL HERTER.

| uuy, Cnafgeu WILL rape upon tle person Ol his daughter, was first heard Herter was bound over to this Court by magistrate in Salisbury, last August. At the January term of this Court true bill," was found against 1 him by a grand jury. The state opened the case by introducing the complainant, Lucy Herter, as the first witness in the case She l testified that her father came to her room on 1 the night of January 4th, 1879, after she had l retired to her bed that he got into her bed l that she remonstrated with him and begged him to leave that he ordered her to keep still 1 struck her on the shoulder and threatened her | life if she made any noise that he accom- plished his purpose upon her, that after that, her father repeatedly threatened her and that she was in fear of her life; that she was held in such fear of her father that she made no complaint to any one till the last of August, when she could keep the secret no longer and l then told neighbor and that she was then told that she might have her father arrested; and thereupon made complaint against him. She testified to threats made to her by her father soon after the alleged assault, and fixed | the time of two; one being the 11th of Janu- ary and another on the 28th She also told of other threats and assaults made by her fath- CT to lntimidate her; stating that on one occa- sion he had drawn a revolver on her and on 1 another had raised an ax over her head by 1 means of which she was kept continually un- der his control and through fear of him had made no disclosures. She had net told her mother; had not told any of her relatives or neighbors who were sometimes there at her fathers house. On cross examination she gave as an additional reason for not having told her mother, that her mother never treated her as other mothers treated their daughters. She denied on cross examination that she had ever been intimate with or had any improper relations with other men. She admitted that for nearly two months after the alleged as- sault till she made the disclosure her father had been away from town.
 A Mrs. Pulver, the next neighbor to the Herters, testified to having heard Herter on one occasion use loud and threatening lan- guage 10 his daughter and to having seen him raising an ax as stated by the witness. An other witness was also introduced who testi- fled to Herter's having on some occasion used violent, unwarranted language relating to his daughter
 The accused took the stand in his own be- half denied the accusations most emphatical ly. and explained some of the circumstances testified to by the complainant He testified that when rumors first came to him of his daughters being pregnant that he endeavored to ascertain from her the cause of her trouble, and that some of the scenes which she de- scibes as assaults made by him to intimidate her were simply his efforts to ascertain from her who had been the cause of her misfortune He also testified that she not only refused to disclose that either to him or te her mother, but insisted that such was not her condition. He testified to having procured medical ad- vice on one occasion and that she refused to be questioned by physician. He admitted having used the words attributed to him by the witness Pulver, and gave as a reason that his sorrow was SO great from the death of his wife and the disgrace of his daughter that he was unable to control his feelings or his words. A number of the most respectable people of Salisbury testified to his previous good charac- | ter. The defense proposed to offer evidence | to prove that the complainant had been seen | under such circumstances as to indicate i'm proper relations with other men at or near the | time when she claimed the outrage was con- mitted upon her, but the court refused to ad- init the evidence.
 The State was represented by States Attor- ney Huntington, and Williams of Salisbury; Graves and D. T. Warner, appered for the de- l fense
 The circumstances as testified to by witnes- ses for the State were ably presented by the States counsel; and the arguments for the State were very ably and eloquently replied to by the counsel for the prisoner. They referred with great emphasis to the improbability of the crime from it's own enormity and from the character and previous behavior of the accused ;; to the fact that the disclosure was so long de- layed, and to the severe scrutiny to which such testimony should be subjected; to the fact of the nearness of this house to others and that no outcry was made at the time of the outrage to the absence of evidence of the reign of terror which the complainant assert ed and to the rule that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the prisoner. The charge of the Court to the jury was very full clear and impartial, and was considered one of
 very great ability by all who heard it. After an hours consultation, the jury returned yer dict of ''GUILTY."
 STATE vs. HoRATIO G. SHERRY.
 On Thursday the court was occupied with the case of State against Horatio G. Sperry. The case was tried to the jury year ago and resulted in a disagreement. The State charged the accused with having caused the tools of George C.. Hitchcock, of Washington (New
 Preston Society," to be taken from stone boat
 by the side of the road, and thrown thence
 into an adjacent swamp. In support of the
 charge, the State introduced young man named Jay Mallory who testified to having been at this time employed by MT. Sperry :; and that. by MT. Sperry's direction, he threw them into the swamp. The State also intro
 duced evidence of confession by Sperry of
 having ordered the boy Mallory to do the mis- chief.
 Sperry denied having had anything to do
 with Mallory's molesting the tools and stated
 that though Mallory had told him that he had
 done it, he did it without any knowledge or
 direction of his. He also denied having made
 any confession of the crime.
 The court was taken up all day with the
 case, witnesses being in attendance in great
 numbers largely to impeach or support the
 characters of the different parties appearing
 for the State or the accused. Some of the
 circumstances connected with the case, and
 some of the testimony which was given, offered rare opportunity, which the distinguished 1 counsel in the case fnllv imnrnved for the