Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-03-05

il is an unnatural thing for a son to testify
against his father. The government asks
you to believe that Young Stain is more i'm,
pelled 10 uncover truth than to cover q
fathers crime The cefense contends that
the motive is to injure for revenge. The
government tells you that Harvey utters nc
word against Cromwell, and that young Stain
says no word against Cromwell. The State
also says that Harvey has become reform
ed man, and that young Stain is impelled by
conscience or superstition TO tell the truth.
The defense contends that the motive of
Harvey and young Stain may be to create a
sensation. As the result of morbid appetite
The State contends that YOU should believe
these two witnesses because their stories
come from independent sources. Further,
it conts nds that the possibility of untruth is
lessened by the fact tina, Detective Bean gets
il from another source. Furthermore, it
contends that if these statements were total
fabrieati0ns, there would not be so much
collateral evidence. The defense contends
that Charles was not at his fathers house in
position TO have seen or heard wha, he
tells you, IN spite of the evidence. The
State contends tsiat you must believe, in
view of all the facts, tina. Charles had oppor-
tnnity enought TO see and hear. In the
corroboration of these two men, Harvey and
young Stain, you must consider what De
tective Bean means, and if he reports Crom-
well correctly. If he understood Cromwell
you must regard that important evidence,
The defence contends that you can
not take any corroboration from his
testimony, as any innocent man
would have said SO in such circumstances.
The government replies that man would
be very unlikely to make such an admission
TO police officer if innocent. Now, in view
of the testimony adduced to show that two
trips were made to Maine in 1877, if you be-
iieve 1t, you must regard it as very important
since the defense denies that the prisoners
were in Maine at that time. The defense
contends that Charles Stain was not in Med
field in 1877, and that he could not have
gone on the expeditions. | believe Mrs.
Moody says she slw Charlie in Medtield in
1877. In regard to the shipment of the
team, the learned counsel for the defense
charges that a paper has been forged to prove
it. You will consider if there could have
been any such motive for such a forgery on
the part of the witness or on the part of any
body.
Now as to the corroboratiye evidence adj
duced by the government Mr.. Parlin says
he saw Cromwell at North Anson in August
1877. If Parlin is not mistaken you have
important corroberative testimony. If the
landlord of the Farmers Hotel is not mis-
taken, you have further important corrobor-
rative evidence. Then the government fol-
lows the prisoners, claiming that it shows the
prisoners to be In this part of the country in
the vicinity of Feb. %, 1878. Here the gov
ernment introduces a mass of testimony.
The government contends that there were
suspicious strangers in Dexter on Feb. %,
1873, and declares that the prisoners at the
bar were these men, Men and women say
that they saw Stain in Dexter on that day,
and others think they saw him. Opportuni-
ties for observation and faculties for dis
elimination must be regarded in weighing
such testimony. The power of distinguish
ing countenances may be excited by some
special agitation. The defense contends that
this sort of testimony is unreliable, while the
State says that, taken altogether, this testi-
mony is satisfactory. That one might be
mistaken the government admits, but does
not admit that ali may be mistaken. The
government places great reliability on the
testimony of Mrs. Cleaves and that of Mrs
Miller. The State says also that not one
witness described the prisoners differently
from another The government goes
ing so far as to corroberate evidence as re-
CARDS dress. There are other items of evil
dence put in by the government but | have
given only the principal.
Now the defense of the prisoners is that of
an alleged alibi
1t has been said by eminent jurists that this
sort of evidence should be subjected to rigid
scrutiny. II unsustained it is useless. but
if sustained it is conclusive. Upon this
question many witnesses have been called
The accused themselves have testified, but
there were denials. OF such you will Judge
as to what you believe. The law assumes
that witness who has been convicted of
crime may not be reliable. Another class
of witnesses is composed of wife and rela-
tives. But you must not forget the tie that
that binds these people to the prisoners. As
to the testiomy of friends and neighbors
you will remember that there is natural ten
dency to get further from the truth for pur-
poses of exculpation. | shall refer to Mrs.
Moodys testimony as an illustration. She
says that she got the boots two or three days
after the 18th of Feb. 1873. On cross
examination she says that it might have been
been week after the 18th, which was her
birthday. Now, the government might ar
que what is there in the present of the boots
Why not IA days? Rhodes says that he
sold fish to Stain Feb. IA and Is, 1873. He
has no memory of it without this books If
he knows this and is truthful these dates are
maintained But the book does not say he
saw Stain on these dates. The question
arises does Rhodes remember that Stain was
at home, or does he argue that he was at
home, for the same witness would not main
tain that Stain might not be away on these
dates. Baker testified that he had lately
destroyed his diary in which he maintains,
was the date of bringing the boots to Stains
The State says he is not to be believed be-
cause it was possible for him to destroy the
private record relating to his wife, and that
it is unlikely such record exists. Revell
says the prisoners were at home. The
Thomases and Mrs. Gilmore testified that
in that direction. The State maintains that
these witnesses are associatng the recollec-
ton with March 4, not Feb. 22. Let us see
how the State puto it. 1t says that these wit
are mistaken or deliberately lie. Bills con-
tracted Feb. | and paid Feb. 26 are intro
duced by the defense. The State says that
between Feb. IL. and Feb. IS there was
ample time for the accused to have gone to
Dextef for criminal purposes Now, if the
alibi is maintained the case of the govern
ment fails. If the prisoners were in Dexter
what were they doing there unless to com
NIT robbery? If they were not there then
they could not have murdered Baron.
Gentlemen of the jury, You have heard
all the evidence, and you are to declare your
honest belief. Now what do you believe?
What conviction seizes you? Is it one of
guilt or innocences If you have reasona-
BILE doubt that the prisoners are guilty you
will say they are not guilty. If you believe
them guilty then the very earth on which we
stand calls loudly for their conviction"
BARRONS HOME.