The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-03-25

DRS, MACOMBER AND TEMPLETON testified
that they made an autopsy of Carr's body
on the 24th of August; that they found three
wounds in the neck and one in the right
breast, between the second and third ribs,
running inward and downward that they
found three or four quarts of coagulated
blood in the cavity OF the chest where the
wound was; that they traced the wounds in
the neck as well as they could, but found no
bullets that they traced one wound to the
spine and found the spine splintered. They
also testified that the body had purified so
much at the time that it was almost impos-
sibe to dissect it, They did not find any bull
let's, but gave 1t as their professional opinion
that the wounds caused Cars death. They
admitted, on cross-examination, that he
might possibly have come to his death by
apoplexy or heart disease.
This closed the testimony on the part Of
the state on the opening, and at fourteen
minutes past two o'clock, Thursday after
noon, the prosecution rested its case.
ON THE PART OF THE DEFENCE.
G. II. HEATH, Esq, for the defence, then
made statement Of the case. While he did
not admit that the respondent killed Carr, vet
he indicated that his main defence would be
insanity; that there were strains of insanity
on both his fathers and his mothers side;
that his father e brother, Joshua Sanders, was
an insane man; that his mothers brother,
Orlena Hoyt, was an insane man; that his
cousin, Emma Hoyt, was now insane that
epilepsy cropped out occasionally in the
family. Mr.. Heath stated that his defence
would show that the respondent did suspect
Daniel Carr of improper intimacy with his
wife, whether true or false, and that he had
some reason for his suspicions that the re-
spondent received an injury in his head,
when small boy, that left quite scar on
his temple; that when respondent was about
fourteen years of age he injured his eye-a
| piece Of percussion cap flying into it, caus-
ing the loss of the sight of his left eye; that
the piece of copper never had been ex-
tracted; that respondent had many pc
culiarities and idiosyncrasies, and that it
had become subject of remark among his
neighbors before the homicide. The first
witness on the part of the defence was
| H. G. LULL, who testified almost identi-
cally as did c. A. Smith, on the part of the
state, as to the arrest of respondent. He
said the respondent was very pale and some
excited, but not boisterous; that he himself
was much excited.
Ed. JACK of East Montpelier was the next
witness. He was respondents nearest
neighbor knew of trouble between respond
ent and his wife on the 22d of August,
the day before the homicide. He came to
Montpelier with respondent; he brought
down some butter and sold it on Seminary
Hill Witness said " After he came back
from there did not see him (Sanders) until
| got home; when got home, found he had
found his own team at the Union House and
| COIut nOlnt WlJu WDc udu uIlNtn
it down. That night he came to my house
to supper; looked bad that night; brought
sewing-machine to my barn; came back and
asked to stay all night at my house; said his
wife had fastened him out. Sanders got up
the next morning and went away before we
were awake came back when we were eat
ing breakfast; wanted some breakfast.
saw him one time drive furiously by my
house to his pasture bars, take them down,
tear down two or three lengths of fence
A.-I.& 81. Al l.
was crazy. Saw him once run his horse
down one of the steepest hills in East Mont
pelier at a break-neck speed" Witness
thought The respondent was insane. Wit
ness also said that in the summer of 1882 one
Abbe Tichout worked for the respondent;
that the said Abbie had daughter about
sixteen years of age, and that she was STOP
ping at Sanders with her mother; that one
night in June, about five o. clock, respondent
came over to his house to grind his axe, and
that witness told him that one Sulham had
carried off his girl to Cabot; that respondent
appeared much excited about the matter,
and wanted the witness to go with him to
Cabot after the girl; that witness refused
but his son went and witness did respond.
ent's chores; that respondent got back
some time that night, but the girl did not
come. Witness once heard respondent
wife tell him that she only married him for
; his money, and that she did not care fol-
him. did not know as respondent made any
reply On cross-examination, witness said
respondent was man of some temper.
CHARLES DODGE testified to about the
same as Smith and Lull.
, AARON WITHAM said that he lived neal
respondent until about December. 1883, and
had worked for him in haying; he was odd
and peculiar. Once in haying he hired one
Peter Hatch, an old man, to help him; when
+ the old gentleman was on the load the re.
! spondent would start the team unexpectedly
thrA off a,,I tIa,, l.
, thought this was mean trick. Witness
said the respondent was accommodating al
+ times, and at times he was not. After wit
ness moved away he went back, and he and
, his wife wanted to stay all night in the
! house which they had vacated, and he
wanted to get some bread and butter OF
respondent. When witness asked respond
/ ent for the food he did not answer at all
witness thought the respondent was insane
, MRS WITHAM also testified to the same
instances of respondents oddities, and
Others of like nature. She thought he was
not at all times in his right mind.
NED WITHAM son of the last named wit
! ness, testified that the respondent once
: hired him to clean out a WELL and after he
had let him down into it and he had par
TALLY finished the job, the respondent went
away and left him there for an hour and q
: half or so. The boy thought this was "a
mean trick"
LYMAN w ORMSBEE met the respondent
, on the morning of the homicide goine
' towards Carr's store; they both said GOOD
morning." and passed each other without
J stopping. Respondent looked pale. HaG
known respondent for many years. Once
? he went to the witness to get the job OF
+ saving his wood; told him that if he was
-: around when he got ready he might saw it
respondent said he would put up his ma
' chine, as no one wanted his work. appeared
excited and angry without any cause thai
, witness knew of couldn't say that he
> thought the respondent insane, but thought
that sometimes he was off his balance.
{ MICHAEL DILLON, a near neighbor of thu
I respondent, said he had seen him get mao
I and whip his horse, without any apparent
I reason. Once last summer respondent drove
D his cattle out of his (respondent's) wood.
y and called TO witness to fix his fence; said i
| he didn't he should, and said he was goinf
to the village to see il he could not obligt
r witness to pay for it. They went to look
| over the fence and found that il was respon
> dents fence that was out of fix, and ht
4 quieted off and they agreed to fl il up, anc
: respondent told witness that he might cu
5 timber ON his land TO fix the fence with
I which witness thought strange as respond
$ ent was very particular about his woods
Witness was of the opinion that respondent
/ was insane
D j, :. WHEELoCK testified that he was IL
? G. IL. Heaths office, few days before tn,
l homicide, and respondent came in and asked
=; MI Heath If he had told his wife that sh,
| could sell his farm without his signing tn,
deeds. Mr. Heath said "No." Witnes,
| said. 80 Then nv vvifa liaa doac ha Mr.