Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-12-10
THE ACCUSED BOUND OVER TO THE
COUNTY COURT.
An Affecting Scene After the Announce
ment of the Decision-Judge Hare's
Remarks and the Arguments Bail
OF $500 to be Furnished To-day.

As City Judge Hare stated Mon
day that he would announce his de
cision in relation to the Jennie SaXtOn
forgery case at o'clock Tuesday af-
ternoon large number of people had con
gregated in the vicinity of the City Court
room when that hour arrived and the
room was rapidly filled to overlooking
Ii was nearly 2:3O however before the
court was openediand Miss SaNtou accom-
panied by her sisters Mis-. Delaney and
Miss Ellen SaXton and her lawyers, flied
into the room and took seats in front Of
the bench TO listen to the decision. As
soon as they had become seated Judge
Hare began Il brief review of tine case
which he preIaced by reading from Desty =
| American Criminal Law passage refer
rln" to thr crime OF forgery. He then
/ lr.Cv, ucd II, follows
The respondent is CHARGED with forgery,
and the answer sue makes To- that charge
/ l. that she was given authority tO write
/ the order she Is charged with forging.
As teu,tng to make her testimony more
probable that she was authorized to write
the order, she has tesslled TO certain
criminal relations between her and Mr.,
/ Mason, which, she says, began in lS>l,
and continued up to within Il few months.
This testimony can only be considered
as tending To strengthen her story that
she was authorized to write the order, bat
it does not establish such a claim upon
Mason as would Justify her act.
Various large sums OF money, she says
We're paid To her by Mason since her al
legged intimacy with him began. Mr.
Mason denies the criminal intimacy and
also the giving of money to Miss SaNton.
Now, i'll my Judgment, the TACT more
proXimately connected with, and bearing
upon the question Of her alleged author
ity to write this order is of primary i'm
. portance, and should he SO considered.
What Is that fact The order, as hel
testimony tends to show, was given prin
cipally because Mason knew of her preg
nant condition, and that he was respon
sible for that condition. Some OF her let
tiers SHOW that she had charged Mason
with being responsible tor her pregnant
condition. Therefore the paternity of the
child, if it is true that she gave birth Il
one last June, is a question in this case.
Mr. Mason denies being the fathel
Of respondents child if she had enid
aud it is claimed by the prosecution mrs.
that her story that she had Chllu IN Jun,
is myth, aud secondly that If she really
had a child last June that the testimony
tends to show that one Arthur locklll
was the father of the child, To ESTABLISH
this latter fact testimony was given by
the respondent herself, that in December
1855, she went TO Boston with locklln
and that she put up at the same note
with him and occupied the same room
with him for a week.
AS bearing ON the probability ol TN
truth of her story, when she says she wa
. authorized to write the order of Septem
her 1, there is what she said in Mr. Eos
tcr's Office and also what she said IN tn
D. ante room here the first day sht wa
1, brought into court. On neither of thes
} occasions did she claim that she was an
70 thorized to write the order,
The respondent and Mr.. Mason are dia