The Portland daily press., 1884-01-30

bearing on the murder made; the jury contin-
ued in session until the day following, and
from information there gathered, together
with confessions reported to have been made
by Oscar e. Blaney, son-in-law of the murder
ed man and Mary G. Barrows his wife, which
confessions were taken down in writing by the
County Attorney, and sworn to, the two above
mentioned persons were committed to Alfred
Jail to await the action of the grand jury.
When the grand jury met Oscar E. Blaney
and Mrs. Barrows were jointly indicted as
principals in the murder. and Mrs. Oscar e.
Blaney as accessory before the fact As Mrs.
present postpozed and this term Of court will
be occupied with the trial of the principals in
the murder
The Motion for Separate Trials.
On the coming in of the court, the Attorney
General said he had learned that motion for
separate trials had baen filed.
Ira T. Drew, counsel for Mrs. Barrows, then
read the motion, which prayed for new trial
on the ground that Blsney's defence would be
of nature hostile to the defence of his client.
Mr.. Drew said in support of his motion that he
case in which the necessity for separate trial
was more urgent. A joint indictment requires
a joint defence; in this case separate counsel
had been assigned for Blsney and what his de-
fence would be he did not know. at all
events TIA alleged confession Of Bianey's
could but be prejudicial to Mrs. Barrows.
The Attorney General contra, argued that
he would agree to the motion if he considered
that the rights of either prisoner would be in
fringed. 1t was not the fault of the govern
ment that the indictment was joint or that
the defense could not be. This indictment
was made public over week ago and we then
heard nothing about separate trials. Over
seventy jurors have been summoned, and a
separate trial must result in continuance OF
one of the cases. The government may not re-
ly 30 largely, as counsel for defence
imagine, upon confessions. Certain admis-
sions may be offered here, bat they will be
presented, if offered, in accordance with the
uniform practice of the courts of this State
Mr.. Drew in reply said Mrs. Blaney would be
unable to be present at the trial and her testi-
mony was vitality important in her mothers
case. he supposed the trial of Mrs. Blaney
would be postponed at all events, so on the
score of delay there could be no objection to
the motion.
Judge Virgin said he knew the usual prac-
tice in joint indictments was to proceed joint
ly. Nothing of this nature having come to him
since the arraignment of the prisoners he had
been led to the belief that the trial would pro-
ceed in the usual form, and SO he had sum-
moned large number of jurors But on the
spur of the moment he would say that neither
Mrs. Barrows nor anybody else is to have any
complaint to make, and he would decide that
the trials should be separate.
After few moments conversation with
County Attorney Higgins when the Judge
had announced his decision, Attorney Gener-
al Cleaves arose AMI moved the court that a
jury be impaneled for the trial OF Mary E..
Barrows. The clerk read the list of the jurors
enumerated and then the drawing of the panel
began. 1t was 1880 q. m. when the first name
was called, and about 120 p. m. the jury seats
were filed. Ths defense challenged peremP-
torily twenty of those whose names were
called, and the prosecution three. Fifty-sight
names were drawn before the jury was en-
paneled. Beside challenges of the defence,
the most frequent cause for rejection was the
fact so many had formed opinions concerning
the guilt or innocence of the accused. Out of
the fifty-sight men drawn, but five had consci-
entious scruples against finding man guilty
of crime punishable with death. The fact
that one man summoned obtained what in
accounts of the crime in the Argus and Bidde-
ford Sentinel was a sufficient recommends
tion to keep him in the box.
After the panel was complete no further
challenging was done by either defence or
government.
The jury is composed of the following men:
Cyril P. Harmon, West Buxton, foreman.
Lyman Butler Sanford.
Nathan Atkinson, Hollis
Alvin Lowe, Lyman.
John Martin, Buxton.
VIM. z. Marr, Limington.
James P. Jacobs, Kennebunk.
Edison II. Milliken, Old Orchard.
VIM. +. Scammon, Limerick.
John B. Bradbury, Buxton.
Daniel W. Goodwin, Kennebunkport,
Nathan w. Henderson, Parsonsfeld.
Deputy Sheriffs D. s. Beacham of Limerick
and Eben Barker of Cornish were sworn to
keep charge of the jury.
The court after giving some sensible advice
10 the jury, adjourned till p. m.
I'm the Afternoon.
An audience even larger than the one pres
ent in the morning, If that were possible, had
assembled in the court room at p. m. The
women not content with the gallery set apart
for their exclusive use, invaded the floor in
goodly numbers. Mrs. Barrows appeared in
the dock alone, and seemed wholly unconcern-
ad tn at she waa tho ovuosura of oil a1ao A.
County Attorney Higgins proceeded with his
severe setting out of the facts and his sharp ar
raignment of the crime and dwelt in particular
upon the frightful moment when Blaney shot
the defenceless Barrows as he lay wounded on
his bed, she listened attentively, but remained
outwardly calm.
1t became finally necessary to lock the doors
10 keep out the crowd, and hardly one of those
present left the court room till court adjourned.
The clerk read the Indictment, which con-
sists of but one count and in the usual form,
charging the crime in the words of the statutes
and alleging an intent to kill.
1t is understood that the order of the court,
granting separate trials must have occasioned
a change in the line of attack of the prosecu-
ton, and but little time was afforded to per-
feet details of the change between the morn
ing and afternoon sessions of the court. Still
the government counsel were ready when the
time for opening came.
County Attorney Higgins Opening for
the Prosecution.
County Attorney Frank M. Higgins made
the opening for the prosecution in substance
as follows: The solemn and impressive man
ner in which the jury has been empsneled is
sufficient of itself to show the issue which con-
fronts us to be Of no ordinary moment Eleven
years have passed since similar case had
arisen here, and it is unfortunate to ever have
to meet another. What constitutes the crime
of murder is laid down in the statutes; it is
with one exception the highest crime known to
our law, from its punishment termed capital.
We need but call attention to the penalty to
show the gravity of the present issue. As Off
GERS of the law, whose business 1t is to protect
mems rights, we al to do our duty, but shall
show no unusual zeal and are not anxious to
win laurels at tho expense of persons charged
with crime. Murder has been committed, q
citizen Of the State has been stric ken downs
and we come to present certain persons az
guilty of this crime. When this issue has been
placed before the jury, the duty of the State is