Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1884-01-11
BATH, Jan, 10.

BATH, Jan, 10.
Upon the opening of the court this morn
| ing Judge Libbey announced the testimony
Of the elder Hopkins admissible as tending
to contradict Limits testimony and weaken
the force of this evidence and for this pur-
pose and no other The case is of so grave
| a character shall not exclude any evidence
upon which | think there is any doubt
Mr.. Hopkins testified: Lint said to me
that my son did not kick the old Indian.
| Limits testimony in court was that he told
Mr. Hopkins he didn't see his son kick the
old Indian.
Counsellor spaulding and Heath argued
for the defence this forenoon.
Col. J. w. Spaulding, counsel for Hop
| kins, after stating the law relating to the
charge contained in the Indictment and the
duty Of the jury in case of this kind, said
that he should claim acqulttal of his client at
their hands because the government had failed
| to produce reliable testimony showing his guilt
The witness Elizabeth Polleys is the only one
| who testifes to the striking by Hopkins and
| she stands a confessed perjurer. She swears
she was the wife of the dead man; was mar
ried to him when she was 10 years old at
Bangor and had to admit she was the widow
of third husband. Polleys drew a pension
| as his widow and every quarter takes oath
that she still remains his widow in order to
| draw her pension. The heel marks are
really the only evidence bearing against Hop
kins, and it is remarkable if the marks were
rs distinct and defined as the witnesses say
that one of the physicians should place the
| heel in one and the other in an entirely diff
ferent place. All the government witnesses
who saw the Indian fall say he tell upon his
face and never moved, hence it would be ut
terly impossible to kick him so to cause
marks. Hopkins saws he did do striking or
ravishiug, that he was out with Lint at the
time. The counsel spoke for two hours,
in the result of the trial than are the govern
ment witnesses, Lint and Polleys.
| Hon. II. NJ. Heath, council for Turner,
argued that it was apparent that the State
| had failed to connect Turner with the killing.
Rape was clearly disproved, for the Indian
woman's consent to the act fully appeared.
| The case as at present makes it just as prob
| able that the killing was done by other in
mates of the house, and that the charge
| made against Turner was by conspiracy
among the parties really guilty. The Wit
| nesses have contradicted each other on every
material point.
When upon the defence's motion the court
ordered the States witnesses to be exclu lie
from the room. aud each to be examined in
the absence of the others. Other partiti.
pants in the events of the fatal night were
| clsssed on every material point. The char
| scter and creditibilty of the inmates of the
house we're severely attacked, and acq ittal
| asked a, to Turner, even upon the testimony
itself.
Attorney General Cleaves began his argu-
ment about o'clock. He called attention
to the statue upon which the prosecution is
is based and defined his understanding of the
law as applied to the case. He claimed the
prisoners were engaged in an awful act; were
| acting in concert and in pursuance of COM
| mon design. They are both principals be-
cause the evidence show that they operated
at the same time and they were situated as
to be able TO furnish aid to each other The
| attorney general claimed that the evidence
was sufficient to show that Turner commit
| ted assault: that Hopkins stood by and aided
him and if violence they claimed is proved
they were attempting to perpetrate a crime
punishable by an unlimitated years of years,
and If murder was committed il would be
| under the law. murder in the first degree
| If the crime referred to was not being at
| tempted it would be murder in the second
degree. The evidence as bearing on the diff
| ferent degrees was then discussed at lensth;
events that took place in the house; fight of
the inmates to escape further violence and the
brutal wounds inflicted upon the deceased,
as the government claims, by the respond
ents was dwelt upon He claimed that the
attempt II prove the good character of the
prisoners was failure; that the attempt TO
palliaie this crime by showing free use Of
rum should recoil upon those who
| advance such q doctrine and instead
of being an excuse for crime seould cause
tee jary to apply the law with greater strict.
ness.
The attorney general continued 1t come
length. discussing various points. aud urging
the jury not to encourage crime by their de-
| cision. and argued the prisoners alone had
motives that they had an opportunity that
they struck Denny down while he was seek
ing to proven, assault upon his family; but
Denny was in his own house ard entitled to
all the protection under the Law that il given