The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-01-07
MANSLAUGHTER.
Verdict of the Jury in
Williams Case.
A New Trial Will Probably BE
Asked For.
Evidence in Support of Judge Ayls-
wOrth's Will--ConteSt Expected.

This morning the taking OF testimony
| in the Williams murder trial on behalf OF
| the defence was resumed. II was to the
effect that the killing was done in self
| defense and that the man who was shot,
| Harvey Alietier, bore the reputation OF
being very quaIrelsome when in liquor.
The witnesses wefe oil asked what the
| name of the eased was and some re-
| piled Pelkey anu others Peltier.
Officer Sylvester was the only witness
called by the State in rebuttsl of the testi-
mony for the defense. His testimo ny was
entirely confined to the spelling and
| pronunciation of the name of the de-
| ceased.
Judge Wilbur decided that the case must
| go TO the juryspotwithstanding Mr.. Little
| fields contention that there was fatal
variance in the indictment because the
name OF the man alleged to have been
murdered was not Pelletisr as stated but
Pelky.
George A. Littlefeld began his argu-
ment for the prisoner. He reviewed at
length the testimony lii the case claiming
that unprejudiced view of ii showed that
Pelletier who was mortally injured at the
home OF Frank Williams was so injured
| by the latter in a disturbance, in which
| the deceased was the chief aggressor, and
that The shooting was in self defense.
He closed with an impsssioned and fer
vid appeal to the jury to do justice to bis
| client.
Attorney General Dubois made the
closing argument for the State and re-
viewed all the testimony in the case,
dwelling upon the many points that
seemed TO him 10 overturn the claim that
the shooting was in self defense. de
traced very clearly the law in regard to
! the killing ~ another when done in
fear of bodily harm. In closing he asked
| only that the memb bers of the jury en-
deavor TO get at the truth in the case,
and then give their verdict in accordance
Herewith.
Judge Wilbur charged the jury as to
the law on the questions involved in the
trial and the case was taken by the latter
at 12:40 O'Clock.
TESTIMONY N REBUTTAL.
The testimony of George A. Jefferson,
one of the executors OF the will of the
late Judge Aylsworth, was continued
this morning. Clarence A. Aldrich con-
Quoted the cross examination OF the wit
ness and asked him several sharp ques-
tions OF personal nature.
The witness testified that the note
given by William &. ANGEL to Judge
Aylsworth was given 50 that none OF
the rest of the latter's family would know
o. the gift 20 Angel of $1,000 by the
deceased.
Ia redirect examination the witness
said that Judge Aylsworth told him he
expected there would be n contest over
the will and this information Mr.. Jeffer-
son said, did not, ol account of some
thing he heard from his father, surprise
him much.
Charles o. Giles, foreman at the Ameri-
can Screw Company's works, testified in
| answer to questions by Mr.. Basseit that
| on the Goth October, ,-1SQ2, he -gent to
| see Judge Aylsworth 10 sec about tho
| transfer OF some shares Of stock in tho
| Westminster bank that were in his
mothers name, who had died. On this
| occasion he saw the judge at bis home
and found him very agrec able and Judge
| Aylsworth said: "All 1 VIII have TO do
| is to telephone to the bank and have the
shares transferred ~ The stock was
| transferred in accordance with the
| judges directions. The deceased seemed
| to be in good mental condition at the
| time of this interview.
o. cross examination TO Mr.. Brown,
witness said he fixed the date Of the in
| torview by an entry I'm diary. lie ad-
! mitted he was an uncle 20 young Eli
! Aylsworth, who received al allowance
! OF $500 a year by the will.
! Patrick. Iieruey, pllmner, testified
! that he had known Judge Alysworth
| about 25 years. Consulted him in 1856
| atout the settlement OF his brothers.
| estate. Had done consider hle work for
! the deceased in 1892 and IN the next two
years. Noticed nothing the matter with
the mental condition OF the Judge.
APPELLATE DIVISION.
In the case Of Orlando X. smith ct al.
vs.. the town Of Westerly et al. ard OF
| Louis W. Arnold et nx. VS.. Walter Price
! an order was entered directing the clerk
! OF the appellate division Of the Supreme
! Court TO notify the Westerly Water Works
/ Company by Jan. % OF The pendency of
! the present actions go tnat IL may enter
such appearance in their cases as may
seem proper.
GUILTY OF MANsIAUGHTER.
The jury in the Williams case was out
| an hour aud fifteen minutes and brought
| in verdict OF guilty oi manslaughter.
George 4. Iittleiield. counsel for Will
/ liams. said that tho prisoner would take
| advantage OF the weeks given him by law
to.decide on whether n motion for n new
! trial would be made or no..
Judge Wilbur fixed toll OF 5000. hut &c
| Is not proba bic that the prisoner csn get
/ any one 10 90 security Tor him In SO large
n sum. lie seemed very much disappoint-
/ ed when the verdict was an1ounccd.
/ Williams Is q much sha-pcr fellow than
one would suppose he was ~ first, for he