The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-05-26

1890. The prisoners were defended by John
rockingham aud William Symmes. William
Lithgon, District Attorney, represented the
Government To crafty au excited public Gu
riosity, the trial took place 10 DR.. smith,s
meeting house. At the close Of the first day
the jury rendered a verdict Of guilty against
Bird, but acquitted Hanson. who was only
nineteen years old. Sentence OF death was
imprsssively pronounced by Judge Sewnli,
which was carried into effect on Bramhail
Hill, on the Goth Of June following,
in the presence Of several thousand per-
sons; having been the first execution under the
law Of the United States.
At the July term OF the Supreme Court
1871, two boys, James Tool and Francis Hilton
We're tried for arsoni they were charged WIN
burning dwelling house in New Gloucester
One of them hadlconfessad having committed
the crime. They were defended by Theophllus
Parsons, afterwards chief justice, who procured
an acquittal on tho ground that the confession
was extorted, and not voluntary; there being
no other direct evidence against them.
In 1892, Joshua Abbott was convicted OF
murder In York. No account Of the trial has
been found. Preparatory TO his execution,
sermons were preached 10 him by the Rev.
Matthew Merriam OF Berwick, and the kev.
DIR. Buekminster OF Portsmouth, after which
his pardon was read by the sheriff.
The indictment Of Henry McCausland, for
murder In 1898, al Augusta, then ahalf shire
prisoner was an ignorant laborer, residing IN
Pittston, who had become insane upon reii-
gious subjects. He was thought harmless, but
finally became impressed that the Lord had
commanded him in vision 10 mako burnt
offering and sacrifice The offering was to
sacrifice woman named Warren, who lived
near. Accordingly, in August, 1893, he set ire
TO the church, an humble, unfinished wooden
edihce, and 1t was destroyed. IL only then re-
NAMED TO perform the sacrifice. Two months
after the burnt-offering, at midnight, he en-
a sick person, and deliberately numbering her
with knife, escaped without obstruction, Tue
next day, great crowd, some OF them armed
came after him, but 40 offered no resistance,
aud was quietly secured. On being arranged,
he pleaded guilty. The chief justice stated TO
him the nature OF the plea, and suggested a
substitution of not guilty. lie replied that he
killed the woman and did not like TO tell lie
about il. The Court did not then record the
plea, but femanded him. On the following
day, a retraction of tho plea was again pro-
posed, aud rejected. Several witnesses were
then examined as 10 the mental condition and
conduct before, at the time OF, and after the
murder. He was never sentenced, and as there
were no insane asylumS, be was com mitted to
Jail where he remained until his death which
occurred thirty.six years afterwards, at the age
OF seventy. During his long confinement, he
1n July, lT9S Jeremiah Pote OF Falmouth,
was convicted of the murder OF his wife, with
a shovel. while he was in III OF jealousy ag.
gravated By il t,xicat.on. He was SENTENCED %
be executed but died in Portland jail before
the time appointed arrived.
In may, iS0S Joseph Drew aud Levi Quinn
by were tried at Portland, for the murder o
Ebenezer Parker, at Falmoath In January.
Daniel Davis, Solicitor General, represent tho
Commonwealth. The accused were defended
by John Holiness Stephen Emery, Stephen
Longfellow and Prentss Mellen. Parker, a
deputy sheriff, In attempting TO break and en-
ter shop where the prisoners were at work,
to arrest Quimby on what proved to be an ille-
gal execution, was struck to hludgeon in the
hands OF Drew, thrown by the latter by Quinn
by, receiving wounds which proved mortal.
The prisoners counsel argued that the of
fense was manslaughser and not murder; that
as the precept did not authorize an arrest,
therefore Parker was trespasser in breaking
open the door, aud his entry might lawfully be
resisted by Drew who had possession Of the
shop.
la reply, the Solicitor General commended,
that when the blow was recsived, the deceased
had not given Drew any provocation, sufficient
IN law to reduce the homicide below the crime
of murder.
1t was held BY the court that the act Of
breaking open the door did not excuse the
crime, because, where tTespass is barely
aRaIuSl tue property OIL aHOtucf, not agar INST
his dwelling-house, the owner is not justified
In using deadly weapon; and II he do So and
death ensues. this will be murder, because it ia
an act of violence beyond the degree OF provo
cation; but ii the beating be with an instiu-
ment, and ia manner not likely to kill, and the
trespasser should, Notwithstanding, happen TO be
killed, il viii be no more than manslaughter."
As to the forclbiy breaking the shop door by
Parker. in order unlawfully TO arrest Quimby,
the second provocation used, the court said
tit was principle Of law, that II any man
under color or claim OF legal authority, unlaw-
fully arrest, or actually attempt or offer to ar
rest another, and II he resist and ia the resist
auce kill the aggrsssor, II will be manslaugh'
ter" And so as to any one "aiding the in
jured party By eudeavoring 10 rescue him, or
TO prevent an Illegal arrest, when actually at
tempted" Il was held that when Parker re-
ceived his death wound he had got arrested
Quimby, nor had be In fact offered or attempt
ed TO do so.
After long and laborious trial, which took
place in the Westinghouse OF the Second Par
ish, Drew was convicted Of murder upon the
ground that the officer had not even offered to
arrest Qaimby when the blow was inflicted,
and thar tho blndgeon used was deadly weap-
on. The jury acquitted Quimby, not being
satisfied that he threw the weapon to furnish
Drew with deadly instrument TO assault the
deceased.
On the last day Of the term Drew was
counsel moved delay Of Judgment, because
they had evidence that material Government
witness had declared before the trial that he
would hang the prisoner by his testimony II he
could; and because one Of the jury did not
agree to find the prisoner guilty OF murder. but
oniy OF manslaughler; and though mistake Of
his duty, be believed that he must assent to the
verdict Of the major part Of the jury. The
court observed that these allegations, II proved,
could not avail the prisoner on any legal prin-
ciples, by which alone the court must be bound,
but II they supported any equitable claims to
favor, he might apply to the Supreme Execu-
tive, who had discretion in the matter. Judg-
ment OF death was then pronounced against
Drew, and be was executed on the 2lst day of
July following, walking from the prison In the
rear of the court house TO the gallows near the
Observatory, full half mile, with Sheriff
W ate ON one side and the Rev. Mr.. Bradley,
of Stroudwater on the other.
Early in the present century, much trouble
arose in portions Of the country between the
Kennebec aud Penobscot rivers, by class Of
people called sqnatters; "men who,o 70 quote
the language OF the late John H. Sheppard,
Esq; 'either without color Of title, or under
implied grants from pretended agents or specu-
lators, had entered upon lots, cleared them up,
built houses, and raised families. Numerous
lawsuits, ejectments and quairsls were the re-
suit. Many Of these settlers believed that the
higher law, the law of conscience justified
any measures, even the shedding OF blood, In
defence OF their ciearings against the proprie-
tors, and combinations for resistance were
formed"
The difficulties eliminated, in 1903. In the
murder OF Paul Chadwick while assisting a
surveyor in Malta, near Windsor. He was
waylaid and shot by an armed party consisting
OF Elijah Barton and others. disguised az In
dams. Eight OF their number, including Bar
ton, were arrested and lodged in Augusta Jail
Their rescue was attempted and the militia
was called out for protection At the October
term Of the Supreme Court the prisoners were
indicted for murder, and special session for
the trial was held during that month. Chief
Justice Sedgwick and Associate judges Sewall,
Thatcher and Parker were present. Sam uel
s. Wilde. oiiHallowell, and Prentiss Mellen, OF
Portland, we're engaged Ia defence, while
Daniel Davis, Solicitor General, appeared for
the Government. The defendants elected to
be tried together,
The trial occupied ten days and forty-four
witnesses were examined. The fact of guilt
was proved beyond any reasonable doubt, al
least against part Of the prisoners. All oil
them had been recognized in Indian disguise
on the afternoon Of ihe murder, near the place
where IL was committed. Seven voluntarily
confessed their participation In the crime.
Two OF their Number we're Identified In the dy-
ing declaration of tue deceased.
Judge Parker charged the jury, who, after
being out two days, TO the surprise OF the court,
bar and spectators, returned verdict OF not
guilty. Higher law had prevailed. The
court made sumo pertinent ana judicious COM
ments upon the extreme danger OF setting
aside the law OF the land, and breaking down
the partition walls between right and wrong,