The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1890-03-20
SELECTED.
STAIN AND GROIN WELL

STAIN AND CROMWELL
DENIED NEW TRIAL or THE LAST
APPEAL.
Foster j. On the evening of February
22d, 1873, John W. Barron, cashier of the
Dexter Savings Bank, was found within
the vault of the bank. wounded, gagged,
handcuffed, Unconscious and In dying
condition. few hours later death re.
suited. Ten years from that time the
respondents, were indicted, tried and
convicted of the murder of this man.
Thereupon general mot on to set aside
the verdict was fled and also motion
for new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence. These motions
were addressed to and heard by the Chief
Justice of this court who presided at the
trial. The motions having been denied
an appeal WAS taken to this court, and
the question before US relates to the cor
rectness of his decision in deng ing these
motions for new trial. Our determine
ton must be based upon the record which
has been presented before us, and which
Is very vo luminous, comprising about
twelve hundred printed pages of testimo.
ny from more than on hundred and tfty
witnesses. Upon the combined evidence
thus presented does the guilt or limo.
cence of the respondents depend. With
the utmost care and dilgent research in
the investigation of this case have we ex-
amined this vast volume of testimony
and the conclusion to which this court,
by unanimous opinion, has ultimately ar
rived, is that the decision of the court
below, denying these motions, was cor
rect.
While 1t is practically impossible with.
In the limits of this opinion to give any
ANALYSIS, or even an extended summary,
of the evidence introduced before the
Jury and upon the motions, it may be
proper in this connection 20 say that in a
very lengthy and elaborate opinion by the
learned Justice who presided at the trial
and before whom the motions were after.
wards heard, very thorough and ex-
haustive analysis of the evidence has
been furnished as the basis upon which
his denial of the motions was founded
and that opinion will undoubtedly be llled
in the proceedings.
An examination of the record discoses
two classes of evidence relied on by the
government as fastening the guilt upon
these respondents. hese classes consist
of the alleged confessions of both re-
spondents In relation to the crime--and
their identification aud presence within
the State and in the immediate vicinity OF
these operations on two previous occa-
sions the year before, and also their iden
titcaton and presence 10 Dexter and in
and about the bank building on the day
on which the murder was committed
These two classes of evidence, while not
in any sense dependent upon each other
are nevertheless in a most remarkable and
striking degree In all their essential par
ticulars entirely consistent, and in har.
mony with each other.
The story as told by Charles +. Stain
Of his fathers confessions to him, and as
to what occurred on two former trips of
exploration from Massachusetts into
Maine in 1877, was the starting point
from which the government was able to
develop, by testimony entirely indepen-
dent of this witness, chain of evidence OF
such strength as left no doubt in the
minds of the jury of the commission OF
the crime charged and of the guilt of
these respondents. That evidence when
discovered stands upon its own merit in
asmuch as it Is entirely disconnected with
the testimony of young Stain, which was
but the key which unlocked the chambers
of this crime and made plain all the evil
dence of these mems guilt. However
much Of truth or fiction the disclosures
of this man may be supposed to contain,
there Is certainly one fact which stands
out transcendently above all others, and
that is, that these disclosures have led to
the discovery Of most important evidence
against the accused which would never
have been discovered without his aid.
While large part of the testimony dis
closes evidences whose only object aud
purpose Is to mpeach this witness, it is a
most striking and significant phase of the
case, that 1t is in no sense
dependent upon the crediblity of this
witness. The governments case does
not rest upon the testimony of Charles +,
Stain alone. 1t Is not whether the story
of This man, standing alone, is to be fully
believed or not. The conviction OF these
men was not based upon that. Yet one
of the most forcible demonstrations of
the substantial truth of the testimony of
Young Stain, in all the material elements
of the case, is, that 1t Is so completely In
harmony with 80 many independent facts
aud circumstances, and the testimony OF
so many independent and distinct wit
nesses. Affirmation and denials by word
of mouth may be fabricated; but circum
stances and the happening of facts can
not The latter Is the crucibe wherein
to test the truth or falsity of the former.
The corroborations Of this witness in his
accusation against the prisoners are not
few or accidental, but many and various,
each imparting and receiving strength
from the other. 1t is not within the pro-
per scope of this opinion to set forth in
detail these numerous corroborations
which are disclosed by the vast volume
OF other testimony which was introduced
both to support and impeach the accusa-
ton made by the witness. 1t Is sufficient
to say that the record discloses these cor
roborations. They exist In reference to
many matters, the evidence of which
could not possibly have been anticipated
by him, If bis story were fabrication.
His story was told,-and in all its essen
tials the same as repeated from the wit
ness stand-long before he knew, SO far
Is can be perceived, that single witness
or single circumstance would be
brought in confirmation of his accusation.
As remarked by the Chief Justice in the
opinion to which we have referred, THE
story is full of details connected with
each other. and of collateral facts, many
of them Of minor consequence, consis-
tent with each other, which naked false
hood would hardly attempt to incllde in
its manufacture. Truth weaves without
effort finer web than falsehood can with
all Its art and cunning"
With the story Of young Stsin as the
starting point, the government sought
corroborattve Information of John F.
Harvey, who for years was an associate
of the respondents, but who for long
time had lived apart from them. He Is .
brother-inlaw Of the defendant Stain,
and testified to statements and confess
ions made to him by Cromwell five years
before the trial and before the story Of
Charles +. Stain. The'fnformation was
not volunteered on his part, nor did he
confess any knowledge of the affair until
q second interview made on behalf of the
government In June or July 1887. This
witness Is also supported 10 the details
and circumstances Of this confidential ad-
mission confded by Cromwell to him In
the fall of 1882. and by the subsequent
statements Of Cromwell to another gov.
eminent witness tending strongly to-
wards confession, and which Cromwell
upon the stand found 1t very difficult to
deny. Very many of the details given Ia
the story Of young Stain In relation Ia
circumstances and transactions prior to
this tragedy are also given by Harvey
with little chance Of confederation be-
tween them.
But how 10 this testimony and the cass