The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-10-04

facts fairly. We claim that Waite has lied
about this case and we leave the respon-
sibiltty of deciding this case to you.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Judge Bonney, Mr.. Libby having fin
ished his argument, arose to charge the
jury He spoke in the first place about
the duties of the judge, of the counsel
AID OF the jury in q case of this kind.
The judge said that the legal fraternity
had been somewhat criticized in times
past but nevertheless the lawyer is very
useful person. The good order of the state
requires that there should be tribunal
to settle differences between the g. ate and
Its citizens and the lawyer plays no small
part in aiding in the settlement of these
matters. The county attorney and Mr..
Heckbert have presented us with about
all the facts in this case and have done SO
ably, faithfully and well. And between
the two we have about all the facts that
| there are.
| Judge Bonney then went on to speak of
the duties of the judge in case of this
| kind and showed the important part
which he takes in the trial of any cause.
He com plimented the jury on the patient
attention which they had, shown during
this trial and spoke briefly on the duties
of the jury as a whole and as individuals.
| Judge Bonney then went on to emu
merate the different fires which Waite is
charged with having set and explained
the various counts of the Indictment. The
| judge also gave the location of all of these
fires with the time which they occurred.
The jury must be prepared to respond to
each one of the 80 counts. If you find
him guilty Oh one count of this indiot-
ment you may say so or you may say he
is guilty if you so find him on any num-
| Der of the counts.
By setting fire to a store it is not meant
that the fire burned the building to- the
ground but that the fires charred the
woodwork OF the building. This point
has not been raised in this case, however
The judge then said that If the fires
should be deemed ofsaecidental origin the
respondent should not be found guilty of
setting them. The state claims that the
respondent set these fires and bases this
claim on three considerations First that
he had motive; second that he had n
| opportunity, and third that he made ii
confession.
First as TO the motive. Did the re-
spondent have motive for setting these
fires? A sane man never does anything
without motive. The state claims that
the respondent was about to engage in
protective patrol and the motive which
he had for setting these fires was to con-
vince the community of the necessity of
such a system Of protection. The respon-
dent, denying setting these fires, claims
that he knew nothing about the protec-
tive patrol when the December fires &C.
CURED and that he did not think of it I'M
til January. If you find his story to be
true then the respondent could not have
had motive. If you find motive it
will add to the probability that he did
set these fires and II he didn't have the
motivs it will lessen the proba bility that
he set the fires.
The state lays especial stress on the
Congress hall fire which they claim cir
cumstantial evidence shows he did set.
Did he have the opportunity? 1t seems
from the testimony Of Capt. Butler that
the still alarm was rung in at 7.lb and
the general alarm was sounded at 7.25.
Several witnesses for the government say
Waite was at the lire about 7.S0. O'Rourke
said he saw him at 7.25, Eldridge at 7,30
or 7.5D, Miles at 7.So, Jones. Pickett and
| Quinn that they saw him there at 30.
| The respondent claims that he didn't
get to that fire until $50. Conductor
| Cushing says Waite came into Portland
on his second or first trip he couldn't tell
which. If he came in on his first trip he
i got here at 7.12 and the still alarm was at
7.15. II he came in on the second trip he
got here at $50. The mere presence of q
man at a fire, however, would not ne
cessarily prove that he set the fire.
| The state further claims that the re-
spondent is guilty OF setting the fires be,
cause he made "a con ession to Brady and
Pritohard. Deli G.. voluntary con-
fessien of guilt II Is. of tho strongest
pieces Of evidence k,.usy TO the law. When
confessions are forced from man by the
upbraidings of his conscience they are of
great value in the ascert Mnment of the
truth. But when they come from a de-
sire to gain money they are Of less value,
and when they sre forced from the lips
by fear they are of no value. If the con-
fession OF Waite did not come voluntarily.
If his mind were weakened by drugs or
otherwise then the confession must be
disregarded. Before you can convict the
respondent on this confession you must
be satisfied that the confession Is true.
This involves the consideration of all the
circumstances under which the confession
was made. Whether or not the statements
made to the detective officers, either verb
ally or in writing, are true Is Tor you to
ascertain. The respondent comes here and
offers reliable testimony that he didn't or
couldn't have caused these fires. Ii you
think he has proven an alibi In any or all
of these fires the respondent cannot be
convicted Of setting these fires. If he has
proven an alibi the respondent claims
his confession is impaired. If the respon-
dent has proved he was at Knightville on
the fire of December II then he could not
have set it. If he proves that he was else
where when these fires were set, or II you
have q reasonable doubt that he set these
fires you must acquit him.
You are to deal with facts, not with
what might possibly have been done by
any theory. You are to decide whether or
not he did set any or all of these fires
and you are to deal with facts.
You will now retire to the jury room
and consider the case and when you have
verdict report in the court room.
Deputy Sheriffs Dresser and Cook were
then sworn to care for the jury and see
that they had no opportunity of CONVEX
sing with any one and they retired to the
jury. room at 1.U5 p M.
- -
For Itch mo Piles irritation of the