The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-10-11
Afternoon Session.

| l6 Tau lUIkObtcu III bAC lhOAhAhNs AAAs O@A
rio said that he knew Mr.. Harry Stewart
Of Bangor who went from Bangor to Water
Vile when he went back to Augusta with
Bigelow. Mr. Stewart was a relative OF
Bigelow's wife, and Mr.. Baker endeaVored
to prove that Mr.. Barrlo told Stewart In re-
sponse to his questions that Bigelow's Of
fence was trivial matter consisting of the
taking Of newspaper nixeys found on the
floor of the car. Mr.. Barrio denied this and
In reply to questions from Mr.. Dyer told
what conversation he did have with Mr..
Stewart; that he told him on that day all the
evidence secured dealt with the embezzle-
ment Of periodical from the mail, but that
other evidence secured showed him guilty Of
graver offenses.
Mr. Baker then opened the case for the de-
fense. He said that the case had narrowed
itself down to the accusation that Bigelow
took from the mail certain newspaper not
addressed to him and swrongfuny converted
1t to his own uses. This newspaper, he said
he should show to the jury in order that
they might see 1t thoroughly, and then
passed on to describe the''nixsys" OF various
kinds that find their way into the postal
N0Ao oh0 ouAu thdt bhO CuotOh heNN 6AOWA uP
among the clerks to take these to their homes
or to give them away to their friends or TO do
anything they saw fit with these fugitive pa
pers that belonged to nobody in particular.
He then said that he had proposed
to show that this newspaper was Of this
class, and that Bigelow, seeing II to be an IL
lustrated paper, and thinking that his fami.
iy would like to look at 1t, put his own name
on 1t and threw 1t into the pouch that was
going TO the town where he lived. He said
that Bigelow would testify TO these facts, as
he had nothing to conceal, but that after the
court had refused to allow him to touch on
this point he would omit 1t. Mr.. Baker ad-
mitted that 1t was a wrong act, and that Big
Glow was willing to be punished for that. al
though being trivial wrong the punishment
must be small. He then said that the de-
fence utterly denied the truth Of the alleged
conversation between the prisoner and the
inspectors detailed by them on the stand.
He passed on TO the discussion Of the char
aeter Of the publication taken, claiming as
matter Of fact that 1t was a newspaper ac-
cording to all rules OF law and common
sense and said that the jury would be Obliged
to decide whether the crime was the crime
Of embezzlement OF mail matter, private and |
valuable letters, punishable by severe fines
and imprisonment, or the simple taking OF a |
newspaper, matter treated as OF much
less Importance and punished by small fine.
would say that the inspector, Mr.. Barrio.
told him that all Bigelow took were newspa-
per nixey, and further that 1t was trivial
case, but that he should work 1t for all that
1t was worth.
Mr.. Harry T. Stewart of Bangor. was the
first witness for the defense. He testified to
the conversation on the platform at Water
vile and on the train going to Augusta. In
effect this was that Bigelow had only taken
newspapers, that he had often tried to
catch him with decoys, but that Bigelow
was too shrewd to be caught. He further
said that Mr.. Barrio told him 1t was a little
affair, and that he was sorry TO have to 90
to so much trouble for so little return. Mr..
Dyer cross-examined him at considerable |
length, the witness reiterating his former |
and throwing In 30 many details |
with so much accuracy and ability that Mr. |
Dyer c0mplimented him highly ON his excel L
lent memory and obliging disposition, which |
the witness gracefully acknowl-
edged.
This was the only testimony for the de- |
fence and Inspector Pendleton was recalled |
by the government In rebuttal. Mr.. Baker |
fought hard to prevent the witness from tes- |
tifying, interposing objections to all ques-
tions asked by Mr.. Dyer until the court ruled |
that this witness might detail what he heard |
Stewart and Barri0 say concerning Bige-
lows case. He said he heard BarrlO say |
that the government had other evidence |
touching crimes in other directions, that is /
In regard to taking other classes Of mail mat L
ter at other times, but that that day they /
were dealing with that particular periodical
On cross examination the witness testified /
that he did not leave the car at Waterville, |
and that therefore heard no conversation /
there. He was net sure whether Mr.. Barrio |
called the paper an article or periodical. |
but 1t was one or the other, not newspaper |
at any time.
This closed the evidence ana alter a short |
interval Mr.. Baker com@enced MS closing
argument He teok Tor his text the dlspari-
ty between the offense charged In the indict-
ment and the trivial affair proved by the ev-
ideace Of the postal authorities and exhibit
tied this In all its phases ana faces to the iu-
ry. He then passed to the discussion of the
character Of the publication taken, arguing
that 1t was newspaper In every sense OF
the word. He then considered the difference
in the punishment for the embezzlement Of
letters and papers and asked for q ruling OF
the court, II the jury found the article TO be
a newspaper, that the penalty imposed
should be simply that Of section SAT- for tax
ing papers from the mail, a fine OF $50. Mr.. |
Baker occupied about an hour In his argu-
ment
At its close the District Attorney addressed |
the jury for the government. He summed |
up the evidence and presented the govern
Judge Webb charged the jury. He first, as |
this Is the first criminal case of the term |
that has reached the jury, gave some general
instructions in regard to their duties. de
LUtlu LO Dt uOh W ohg
of the testimony of the case against Bigel
GaT TSoh bias isll thrGqsh ihsir finding In c0 com
ing to the case In point. he read the In
and discussed briefly the evidence |
bearing on the several points. He defined
as the crime of con-
verting to ones own use property that Is
in his possession for keeping or /
carrying, or otherwise. Ii, he said, the artt
Gle taken, in your judgment, was merchan-
Nhnr1 find ha nhATv
thing you will bring in verdict OF guilty.
If, on the other hand, you find that It was /
not merchandise, then, although satisfied
that he wrongfully took the article, you /
must bring him In not guilty, leaving II 1or i
the government to bring another Indictment
or another charge at some other time. Judge
Webb said he had hesitated for some time i
" neither to let the matter OF TACT, wnether or
not the article was newspaper or i
not rest with the Jury, put tnat
it to them. He then read definitions OF the |
word newspaper found in different dletiona-
ries, and said that all definitions agreed that |
newspapers must contain opinions OF events, |
record of events, past and future, advertise
ments. etc. "If," said he, 'you are satisfied
that this article in question Is a newspaper,
you are to bring the defendant in not guilty,
even though you find that he wrongfully took
It from the mall II you ind upon examin,
ing 1t that It is not within the meaning Of
this definition, which | instruct you as that
which is contemplated by the statute bear
ing on this base, you are TO bring in a YER
dict of guilty." In closing he referred TO
the point made by Mr.. Baker Of the triviallty
of the case, saying that it was the invasion
Of the public rights by trusted officer, not
the value Of the article taken. The jury re
tired at six o'clock.
After the jury had been out about an hour
they brought in verdict OF not guilty.
The Increased Price of Shoe Leath-