The Portland daily press., 1895-06-05
MANY WITNESSES
Testified at the Arson Trial at
Alfred.
GOVERNMENT CLOSES ITS CASE
AND THE DEFENSE OPENS.
DIR. Webber Will Take the Stand Today in
His Own Behalf-The Gowells We're
Asked Very Leading Questions.
Especial to the PRESS. }


Especial to the PRESS.)
| Alfred, June T. There was a monotony
to the states testimony, this forenoon,
in the trial of the West Lebanon arson
case. 1t seemed as if the whole town of
Lebanon had been summoned to tell. the
story Of the burning Of the Moody build
ings at the town farm, on the night of
August 12. The evidence of today was
largely corroborative Of yesterdays, and
related chiefly to what DIR. William W.
Webber, the respondent had said, in one
| way and another since the fire.
Frederick H. Kinds, assistant superin-
tendent of the Boston office of Pinker-
| toms detective agency, gave testimony in
| confederation of the dramatic story which
Detective Ryan told on the stand. Then
| John r. Chamberlain, Fred Chamber
lain, J. Fred Lord, John o. Hayes,
Martin L. Dixon, Edward Stanley, Mrs.
Alma Dixon Mrs. Annie Locke, Cyrus
W. Hayes, Eugene E. Gowell, Miss Gertie
Simpson, James Nelson, Mrs. Nora Mel
son, Mrs Laura Gowell Edward A Good
win and Mrs. Julia A. Jenness were
called, in the order named, and ex
amined
The examination was very brief, except
that of Superintendent Eugene Gowells of
| the town farm, his wife and James Mel
SON. The Gowells, in their cross-exami-
nation, were asked some very pertinent
4 questions about their visit to the farm
i buildings the afternoon before the fire,
and their attitude toward DR.. Webber.
Mr.. Gowell was asked why, after he heard
of the fire, he went off fishing, instead of
4 10 3o11 =, SC 70 +bat c1,o
would cease her preparation for moving.
| Nelson admitted that for five days he
circulated remonstrance about changing
the location of the aims house to the
Moody place, but denied that he ever
heard Eugene Gowelll say the town would
be better off if the Moody buildings
should burn.
The state last witness, Mrs. Jenness,
proved an extraordinary witness, in that
i she was able to recite for three quarters
OF an hour, without interruption, the
various dialogues that ensued on the
occasion of DR.. Webber's calls at her
home
1t was 4 O'Clock when the states side
rested. Fifteen minutes later George f.
Haley, ESQ.,, began the opening for the
defense. He claimed that the government
had utterly failed to connect DIR. Webber
with the fire; or to get him any nearer it
than Martin Dixon's house, which is
II S61ll6 ulnlttlC6 AWAY duo WlllCu place Un6
| governments witnesses say he drove
away from, in the opposite direction from
| the poor farm, about g. 3d. Mr.. Haley said
th prosecution had set up the claim that
Dr. Webber was the first person to express
suspicion against Superintendent GOwell,
when it is fact that even before the fire
| had burned itself out there was common
talk connecting both Gowell and Nelson
with the origin of the fire. 1t was known
that Gowell was opposed to the occupancy
of the Moody buildings and he and James
Nelson had circulated remonstrance
against it,
The government had also put in evil
dence to show that the Moody buildings
We're all securely fastened when the
Gowell and their friends left about f. 30
| that Sunday afternoon but the defense
will introduce witnesses who heard some
body rattling around in the house about
| Z O'clock and at the time concluded that
| the noise was made by the prospective
occupants moving in.
Lawyer Haley frankly admitted that
DR.. Webber had told conflicting stories,
and that it was in consequence Of these
stories that he is now entangled in the
meshes; but he declared that the re-
spondent's S sole motive in twisting the
truth was to mislead the detectives, so
that he would have clear title to the re-
ward of $500 offered by the town for the
apprehension of the firebug
Referring to the progress made by the
doctor in his investigation, before the
detective interfered, the counsel argued
that one person had already made a
Eugene Gowell had asked what would be
the consequence if a person did not set
the fire but was knowing to it. That call
Il of DIR. Webber's at Gowell's s, ON the night
OF August Is, was anticipated by them,
and related to this partial confession
Continuing, the attorney said the
defense would account for the Doctors
time that Sunday evening, and would
prove that he did not have the opportuni-
ty or the motive to set fire to the build
ings.
g Mrs Josie L. Webber, wife of the re-
spondent, was the first witness called for
the defense She told a straightforward
story, claiming that her husband was at
home all that Sunday afternoon; that he
did not leave home till after $50, when
he drove off in the direction of Richard
Goodwin's, in the opposite direction from
the scene of the fire. Returning about
eight o'clock, he was informed that he
also in different direction than that
leading to the poor farm. He returned
home from there between g. 80 and 10. and
called for his son, as he drove into the
yard. She took the lantern and went out
into the yard while the horse was taken
care Of The doctor did not go out again
that night. Mrs. Webber further testified
that her husband came from the direction
of Shorey's; that she was watching for
him. For two years he had been in poor
health, and had several times had spasms
when off on the road. So she had made
practice of sitting up and awaiting his
return, whenever he was called out by
night.
Dr. Webber will be called as the first
witness at the opening Of court in the
morning Ten witnesses were sworn for
The defense is likely to consume all of
tomorrow, so that the case is not likely
to go to the jury before Thursday after
noon.
| - ba AIfarad