Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-04-20

immedistely before and after the time oI
the burglary are suspicious and tend 4
show hss connection with the burglary. ths
change Of coats. the takiug Of the hRh
calofed coat Of Perkins. his going away or
the afternoon following the morning Of the
burglary and remaining several days,
Bickfofd's reply 10 that he went 50 swaY
hosses and his couassl argues that hii
going away had no significance because he
| wearing the Perkins coat. the light one,
when arrested, ought not to weigh against
him because he would not have been likely
70 wear il If he had committed the burglary
with il on, - he would have been more
likely 70 have done that act In dieguiee.
Agaia il 10 contended on behalf Of the Stats
that VIM. Smith even when sobef did NO,
possess the strength and courage to attempt.
alone At least. the pefpstration Of such =
crime, and that II what he stases 10 srua
that be drapk Ave or eiK times Of rum and
vhiskey just before, he would have been
rendered doubly incapable OF doing what
vas done in that house, showing much skill
aud foresight and pefsistence, , and that hence
ii 10 much more probable that one Of the
others entered the house. and that ii mus.
have been Bickford ~ he answers best the
description Of the person a. given by Mrs.
Cook To these suggestions il 10 answered
that the liquor drank by Smith supplied
him with nerve and energy and bluoted his
moral sense to such degree as to fif him
for the work and that he alone Of the three
understood the arrangement Of the rooms
10 the house. All these matters are for
your determination, which theory 10 most
probable? Was il Smith or Bicktord who
entered? il either, was the other near st
hand aiding and abettipg? Ifso both are
equally guilty.
Now NJ to Cochrane--wss he = principal
in the crime? Did he aid and assist the
burglary, or was he in the vicinity for that
purpose? The goods were fouad. ssys the
Stste, secreted under his bed. Possession
Of stolen goods may OF may not be evidence
of weight to convict of burglary. That de-
pends upon the explanation TO be given Of
the possession. In order to entitle the fact
of mere possession to weight the goods must
be shown to have been in the control Of the
accused, ard then, whether the possession
amounts to evidence of the principal crime
of burglary, or is evidence Of other crimes,
receiving stolen property or being acces'
sorry after the fact 10 secreting them. de-
pends upon the account the accused is able
to give of them and any other circum-
stances, prejudicial or otherwise, that may
be shown in evidence. CochrAne denies all
knowledge that the goods were there until
the officers found them. IL that or not
probable? He denies that he knew of
the absence Of Smith that night. Is
that likely or otherwise2 They slept
in the same bunk, were boon companions,
had been drinking together that night. Did
the drink imbus Smith with such provident
caution that he would have been likely to
conceal so important secret from his CON-
panion under all the circumstances Of their
association as shown by the evidence2
Smiths testimony tends to inculpsse him.
self alone in the burglary. The county
attorney claims that his statements are not
to be fully believed although agsinst him.
self; that he 10 convicted criminal by his
own confession and that his singular course
Indicates that he has been influenced by
some unexplained motive TO favor the other
prisoners. What are the probabilities Of
this9 Do the relations of the parties give
you any light on that point? Smith, it is
claimed, has changed his confession in an
important particular, that he at first exon
Grated Cochrane entirely, but he now says
Coehrsne knew of his going and returning,
that he followed him to the bank near the
river and met him on his return, inQuiriny
as to his success. Is that true? II
so what does it indicate as to
his being near enough to watch. guard or
assist The one who entered the house.
Is ii conclusive? Did he remain
near enough to have given an alarm or
assistance IL needed? IL would not be
sufficient to eonvic. him, if he went but
short distance and then stopped so far
away that he couid not be of
any assistance in the burglary,
although he knew it was to be committed ::
that might make him an accessory before
the fact, crime of great mag
niiude, but would NOT be suf-
ficient to warrant you in finding him
guilty under this indictment. Now what
are the facts as TO Cochrsne? Whist do all
the circumstances satisfy you Of? Does the
whole case leave you with H rational dSobt
that Cochrane and Bickford or either of
them sre principals and equally guilty with
Smith, If so your verdict must be mot
guilty." but if you shall fud after careful
consideration of all the testimony that
you cannot reasonably presume them inno-
cent, your verdict must be guilty"
The jury retired at . 45. At2 20. p. NJ.
they came in and reported they had been
unable 10 agree and that there was no pros
pect Of an agreement. They were there
upon discharged from further consideration
Of the case, and excused until Monday at
10 A. NJ.
On motion Of Mr.. Carleton, VIM. Smith
WIS brough. In and placed st the bar for
sentence, and the judge imposed sem
tence of ,hree years at hard labor in the
State prison.
gickfo-d gave bail in the sum Of thou
ssud dollars on each Of the indictments
against him for his appearance at the Sep
tember term Cochrane was remanded 10
Jail for trial in September.
Michael Dever wss arraigned and pleaded
n0io eoatenolre to an indictment for perjury
in . Togus liquor case at the December
term and was sentenced to jail for two
months, having slreSdy been IN jsil since
the riddle of December.
ClsrIes Brown Of Wsterville. indicted
At .he September term for forgery of ar
order on which he obtained suit of clothe,
VI ShNy W DuBet w dtSFNIBc, Nhs bho"tA
to 90 on his own recognizance until Sep
tsmber, IL appearing that the clothes ha1
been paid for and that the man had been ir
Jail since October.
Joseph Husrd OF Waterville. retractet
his place Of not guilty to an Indictment fo
a liquor nuisance ard pleaded noio con
tcndre, and Was sentenced to fee Of si0t
or ninety days in jail.
Charles Csbsns of Waterville. on an oil
case of common seller was fined 500 sns
costs taxed at $29, or thirty Gays in Jail
snd on an old case Of liquor nuisance, $io'
or ninety days in Jail.
Jere Murphy, for the larceny of sn over
coat, was sentenced to fne Of $50 or o.
days In jsii.
| II. II Tborndike was sentenced to pa,
ins Of $3.50 or 90 days in jail, on . con
| victi,n at this term for maintaining com
mon nui-aucs.
Geo. L. Lsshus aud Charles Cabana o
Watervilie withdre~ their pleas Of no
guilty 70 the indictments found agsins
| them at this term and filed demurrefs.
| III. Q Blake of HalloweIi filed demurrer
to the two liquor indictments found again.
| him at this term.