The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1896-12-16

examination as to getting rid of child. AT
ter birth OF child it was laid down at foot Of
bed. After doctor went away Mrs. Nokes
sat down in rocking-chair and fell asleep,
Don't know how long she slept. Asked her
not given any. After Mrs. Nokes took
child up she carried it into kitchen. She
brought IL back and said it was dead,
Looked at child. 1t was not breathing.
Nokes did not come into the room. Asked
Mrs. Nokes to have Mr.. Nokes bury the
child and ! would take it up andxbury it be-
side my father in Hyde Park Martin
Nokes was not father of child. While at
Nokes place no improper relations had
taken place between her and Mr.. Nokes.
Witness denied having slept on a buffalo i'm
Morristown with Nokes Had ST. ut with
her mother. Stated that Will Beardslev
was the father Of the child. Told select
men that she did not think it was any of
their business where child was buried.
Her cross examination was by Judge Stan
ton. Saw child before it was laid on foot OF
bed. Mrs. Nokes had IT, Saw Mrs. Nokes
when she took child and carried it into
kitchen; carried 1t in her arms. Did not
rememb how long she was gone. First
time she came back informed her that child
was dead. Saw the face when she brought
II in. Face plainly exposed. Witness testi-
fed that she touched the face and it was
cold
Mr.. Shurtleff had DIR. Chandler and Dr
Bis6ee called, and made an offer to produce
the blood OF calf for the purpose of testing
their knowledge of whether II was clotted
before or after death, which testimony was
excluded. DR.. jackson testified in relation
to the differences between the blood of ner
sons and animals, upon which MIR. Shurtleff
renewed his offer, which was again az
cluded. The defence then rested
Will Beardsley of Morristown. Ia rebuff
tai for state. Had heard Emma Jones state
that he was the father of child. Stated that
he was not. On leaving Nokes he had gone
TO Molrstown. Had taken no pains to con-
ceal where he was.
Allen Belville followed Beardsley in re-
buttal for defence. His testimony in rela-
ton to remark Beardsley had made in re-
lation to reason he had for staying at Nokes
place. Respondents case then rested. Judge
Stanton opened the argument for the state
at about a: 20 o'clock Thursday afternoon.
His argument was unfinished when the re-
| cess for the day was taken.
Judge Stanton finished his opening argu-
ment for the State Friday morning He
was followed by f. L. Laird and S. G.
Shurtlef for respondents, and States At
torney Fred A. Rowland for the State.
Judge Ross, after consulting the jury, fol-
lowed Immediately with his charge. He
stated that, owing to the Importance of the
case, he had departed from the usual course
and had committed most Of the charge TO
writing. While both respondents are
charged, each respondent was to be re-
garded separately. He carefully explained
| the various counts and what is a reasonable
doubt. The first fact to establish is the
fact that the child was born alive, otherwise
no crime has been committed. The first
question to bs determined is if child was
born alive and its death was caused by
criminal act or neglect Of either of them.
1t is conceded that child was born alive,
and the question if Martin Nokes was father
OF child is a question to determine. Spoke
of the claim made by defence that the death
was caused by bleeding. Immediately
after child was born doctor went away. No
attempt of respondents was shown to have
any one present. They took the whole
thing upon themselves.
Was death brought about by fracture? II
you should tinu that 1t died for want of care
and not because Of chushing Of skull, the
question of criminal neglect is to he deter
mined. If you find respondents or either
OF them killed the child then you are to de-
termine the character of homicide.
Judge Ross charged the jury as to what
constituted murder and manslaughter, and
as TO murder in first and second degree, and
that they had no right to 90 outside of
the case in consideration of any question.
The jury were given the case at about o. 80
o'clock Friday afternoon.
AT half past eight Friday evening the
jury returned a verdict OF guilty of man
slaughter against both the respondents.
Seht-ncd was not imposed and the case
goes to Supre ne Court on exceptions. Mrs.
Nokes " as admit ed to bail Saturday morn
ing in the sum of $1,000, the authorities of
the town Of Worcester entering as sureties.