Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-08-25
ACQUITTED.
MRS. Hall, the Alleged Murderess,
Cleared.

OATH, aug. a.
The case of State VS.. Mary A. Hall, indict-
ed for killing Eleazer King at Bath, August
Sth, occupied the Ssgadahoc Supreme Judi
cial court at Bath. Monday forenoon. The
evidence showed that the defendant, a mar
ried woman with two children, was keeping a
house resorted to for lewd purposes, tha, ON
the evening in question, Mary Lizzie Pink
him, an unmarried woman who was taking
care OF the children. entertained fer an hour
or two George and Joseph Ford. two brothers.
little after nine O'Clock the deceased came
to the premises and inquired for Sis Pinkham,
the defendants maiden name. He was told
that she was out. He then left, but soon re-
turned with her, and treated the company
from bottle of liquor, and afterwards went
out for more liquor; became noisy and very
quarrelsome.
Defendant tried to quiet him; told him the
police would be there. The Ford boys then
left She went out and tried to find the
police. There was some evidence that Mrs.
Hall and Mr.. King had high words At the
top of the stairs to the ground, where he was
found senseiess by the police soon after, who
came at the call of the defendant.
King died on the l4th of August, and it is
under.tood attributed his death to the act of
the defendant. The witness. Miss Pinkham,
was confused and self-contradictory in her
testimony The county attorney. after the
evidence was out. stated that while he wished
all guilty persons charged with crime to be
punished, he did not think the jury would be
justified in finding q verdict of guilty on such
evidence as he was able to offer, the declara-
tion of the defendant being excluded by the
court.
Judge Walton said ut is undoubtedly the
right of the defendant, If she or her counsel
desire it, to have verdict, though perhaps
an entry of mol prosequi would answer prac-
tically as we'll. l think the course persued
by the county attorney is commendable.
do not myself think the evidence would justi-
fly verdict of guilty. If upon this evidence
alone verdict of guilty should be returned
and were asked to do so l should feel it nv
duty to set 1t aside. In fact think all the
jury, after having viewed the premises have
come to the conclusion it is not improbable
that the deceased came to his death by his
own act or carelessness, as that any one
pushed him of the stairs Certainly there is
not more evidence that this woman did it
than the other. There does MOI seem to be
any direct evidence that he was pushed of
bv anybody. 1t is not at all improbable when
the respondent started to go for the police
that she went out of the front door thinking
that the nearest way. There being no rail-
ing at the head of the back stairs. and he be-
ing in a state of partial intoxication, certainly
it is quite as probable that he fell off himself
as that anyone pushed him. You may con-
suit among yourselves and if you should come
to the same opinion, you may return q YER
dict without leaving your seats" There was
nothing improper in having the matter pub
licly investigated. The jury without leaving
their seats returned verdict of not guilty