Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1889-07-27
MAINE DISPATCHES.
Rehashine Worn Arguments on
the Barron Tragedy.
Stain and CfOmVell'S C0anSel Plead Elo-
Quently for New Trial.
And Attorney General Li.tlefieid az
Readily Replies.


AphfLaSb. Suis ~
The court came in this morning at 8 O'Clock
and Mr. Barker continued his argument in
the Stain and Cromwell case. He spoke of
Charles Stains confes sions and the dis
crepancies between them. He said that
young Stain had grudge against his IA her
and his statements were actuatsd by motive
Of revenge. He said he would show that
Stain was not out Of the State from the time
he was discharged from prison in 1881 to the
time of the crime. The fact that Cromwell
staid right at his work and showed no un
easinsss before his arrest goes To show that
he was not aailty man. The idenuiica; on
of Stain and Croms ell BY clt'z@rs Of Dexter
should not haze great weight, for they hsd
not seen the men for ten years. They looked
ut the photographs of the men and identified
them more from the pictures than from ,he
faces of the respondents,
No one testified to seeing Stain in the
famous November trip Mrs. Miller identi-
ned Stain and Cromsell "a having been at
her house After~srds it appears that
lady and gentleman who worked for Mrs
Miller At the time visited the state prison
and saw the prisoners. They at once er
claimed, Why those are not the men " no
were at Mrs. Miller's.
Several witnesses entirely disagreed as to
the stvle Of beard the man wore whom they
thought was Stain pne SAID they were
about the same height which they are not
Stain was Identified with six kinds of beari
sn IN u.irrh On The same day and Cromwell
with i've u n rent nays of wearing his bearl
Al the .itressrs Identified Stain as wear
ing brosn coat The brown overcoat was
not in STAIN. POSSESSION after the fall of
1876 Mr. Fowler and other Witnesses test-
fy that stain was ~ Medtield on the morning
of February ~. 1878 Several witnesses
tell IT seeing stain n Medheld on the after
noon { the 2Ist No less than seven wit
ne.-es resrectab citizens of Medford. will
positively tes tify that Stain was in that town
on the day when the Hamant horse was
stolen. which was on February II, 1873.
Mr. Bake then went over the evidence
y, leng.h by which Stain was identified ss
being In pexter at the time of Barons death.
ella ming that it i. not Sufficient to prove
San. presence there at that date. He com
pared the testimony Of the several witnesses
and claimed more than one discrepancy, He
claimed tn, weight of testimony is now that
Stain was in Medh III February %. 1873. lie
said that there are Is new witnesses Who
had never appeared before jury and that
fact alone ought to decide the judges to
grant = new trial.
Attorney General Littlefeld began his
gumeat shortly before l.3o o'clock. He
spoke Of the amplitude with which this case
and trial has been placed before the public
in the newspaper He said it had been I'M
Piled that the paolic mind is not satisfied of
the guilt of Stain and Cromwell. but that
shcu'd 10. influence the court.
Mr. I.irtletiefi sail the act of 1889 was
put through the legislature expressly fer the
purposes of this case. He called attention
TO the expense of printing large volumes of
cvi lence and said the way in which this case
was brought before this tribunal would prove
a precedent which would give trouble in
future.
He spoke of the assertions of counsel
which were not part Of the record and in
sisted that nothing outside of the printed
evidence should have any weight with the
court. He went over the statements of the
opposing counsel and called attention to what
he said we're inaccuracies, His argument
then paid attention in detail TO the points of
the evidence brought ous in the trial. He
replied forcibly to the statements and de-
ductions If Mr.. Barker.
With relation to the attempt of the legis-
lsture t. introduce the proposition in section
n of chap. l3l, laws of 1889. that the law
court can he controlled in its action by
minority of its me members. he said that the
act provides that the concurrence of but
three shall be necessary to grant this motion
IL might AS well provide that the coScur-
renee of but one would be necessary to the
granting of the motion That it is entirely
incompetent for the Legislature to provide
that the supreme Iud'o'si court.
created by the constitution shall
act in any specific instance by any
minority of its members. is proposition
when seems too obvious for argument. The
Law court acts slvays as court sni nos by
its individual members. II would be equally
A. competent for the legislature tn provide
that minorit, could conclusively determine
AGAINST the opinion of the majority qnes-
tions of law and this would practically
abolish the court itself. by depriving the
majority of its Inherent power To hold
that minority of this court against the de-
cision and will of the majority can issue any
order or decree or make any binding deter
minstion for the court. se'm ms PLAN ana
palpsble contradiction of terms
In closing the Attorney General said
feel authorized to state that recent develop
meuts of fact, and there are facts continually
cropping cut ard being brought TO the knowl-
edge of the government. not disclosed by TINS
record. point with over~ ~heimlng force And
unerriua certainty to the guilt OF these
rsspopdent. Nor has any new fact, undis-
closed BY this record, been brought to my
lnovle,tss. inconsistent with this conciu-
sion