Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1884-12-24

make more observations as to what your YER
diet shall be. The prisoner in this case
comes into the court house clothed With the
presumption of innocence. That he be poor,
that he be humble. is not q fact TO be brought
for or against him. OF course it is unneces-
sary for me to say that this case Is to be tried
wih the same Jealous regard for his rights
80 il he was our most prominent citizen.
That the prisoner has been indicted by q
grand jury for murder, is not a matter for
you to take into account. The indictment is
simply for the purpose of bringing him here.
Now. gentlemen, that human being should
be killed is most deplorable fact. and that
Officer Lishness should be shot down is q
very sad affair, and no man has regretted it
more than the prisoner at the bar. You see
him before you, gentlemen, for what he is.
Six weeks in jail, where he has kept away
from liqe. has enabled him 10 come before
you to testify. Coming here from the beau
tiful Emerald Isle. he went upon the battle
field and faced death and rebel prisons; there
he received wounds which to-day make him
broken down paralytic. For six years ne
has lived in this city. There is nothing to
show shat he has ever been convicted of any
crime. Under the law, if a witness is placed
upon the stand, the government has a right
TO put in as evidence the records of the court
to prove previous criminality. So he
has gone through life without any other Of
fence than simple drunkenness. He is not
on trial for drunkenness. he is not on trial
for what he has done before. Now, gentle
men. what are the facts On the SATURDAY
previous to the killing of Mr.. Lishness. he
took steps to go to Lowell. and it cannot
be denied material evidence has been intro
duced here to show why he took the revolver
from the drawer on that day. 1t cannot and
will not be denied that on the Monday when
this affair occurred he took steps to go to
Boston and Lowell On that day the clothes
which he now has on were taken from
trunk and placed on a chair, and placed
his wallet in these clothes. that he might not
forget the money to paw his expenses. Dur
ing the afternoon he was engaged IN making
this beer of which he drank so much. Not
having the maddening effect that stronger
liquor would have upon the brain, this mix
ture completely muddled his head. He placed
him in the demoralized condition in which
he was found By the officers Well, gentle
men, during those eight hours, there passed
into his stomach two gallons of this beer. 1t
seems that during the evening he had an al
tercation with some young men. To be sure
this was not corroborated. Whether that be
true or false, it is not, in my judgement vital
making his tongue go, and raving about the
KEY. And right here, gentlemen, comes the
first conflicting testimony. Mrs. Randall
says that after speaking to him he continued
his racket. He says he went to bed.
Mr.. Heath held that Mrs. Randall had
warped her evidence.
Mrs. Randall started after the officers
Why didn't she notify him? Why didn't she
tell him that if h. did not keep still she
would summDn the officers. He had no
intmation that she was going after the Off
GERS. He was then in his little room, and.
gentleman. the lowliest cottage is respected
by law, equally AS much as the most magnifi-
cent mansion on Il fashionable street. All
the occupants Of that building, with the ex-
ception of Mrs. Randall never heard a sound
Of Burns disturbance. For a man to Simply
be intoxicated in his own house is no crime.
La his own home and castle a man has
greater rights than on the highway, or a
public place may be in state of drunk
enness on my floor or my bed, yet the law
cannot 50 much as place its finger on me.
And why? because ain not interfering with
others rights But on that night, before he
could be arrested by the officers, he must be
making disturbance or be intoxicated,
claim that the officers did not have reason
beyond doubt for arresting Burns on that
night. | claim that Baker had reason for
warping his testimony here. Both were in
experienced officers. l hold that these Off
GERS were not doing their duty, and if you
find these officers were exceeding their
authority, then the most you can do is to
bring in a verdict of manslaughter. Right
here comes one of the most important ques-
tons of the case. Did Mr.. Burns know that
these men at the door were officers?
Did these me inform Burns that they were
officers? What is the evidence that the gov
eminent introduces to show you that Burns
knew that it was Warren? All their case
rests on is the word Warren" If there
had been no killing that night Mrs. Randall
or Mr.. Baker would never have thought of
bringing this word forward. Mr.. Burns
proves to you that he never uttered the word
Warren but when the men came to the
door, told them to go away. Not a word
about arrest did the officers say to Burns as
to their errand. The next act was the raising
of this window. Now right here, as to the
manner of the shooting, you have nothing
but the testimony of the prisoner. Now
did he see Lishness? 1t is an impossibiity
that he could. II was in a room where there
was no light. There were two curtained win
dows. No light of the moon shining in, or
lantern in the room. Then he was on the
other side of the room, man, who at that
time of night. at his age, could not possibly
have seen Mr.. Lishness. He did not nor
could he have aimed at the officer. He
| simply raised the weapon and aimed in
the direction of the window.
Mr.. Heath took a skull furnished by
DR.. Croker and commented upon it and
the position of the wound.
Gentlemen, the track of the wound shows
that the shot came obliquely from the direc-
ton of the bed Mr. Burns could not have
possibly stood Immediately in front of the
officer; only by an oblique shot coming from
the part of the room in the direction of the
bed, could this wound been made, Now,
gentlemen, did he do this believing that
some one was unlawfully coming into his
window? If so, he did no more than any other
man naturally would have done for gentle
men, if you should be sleeping in a lower
room Of your house, and you hear parties
outside, and having no intimation who they
were; if you know not who they were and
you fire upon them after careful calculation,
| fire upon them and kill, then you are justi-
| fed; if you fired rashly, then the only YER
dict can be manslaaghter. There is a tech.
meal rule that there Is a presumption ofmur-
der in the use of deadly weapon. This
will not trouble you, fer all the facts show
that he had reason in firing this pistol.
Now, gentlemen, | have not argued the
facts in this case as applicable to a case of
murder in the first degree. l deem it as en-
trely unnecessary, for there is not the slight