The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-09-30
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENCE.

s-t- 2 - -.
The state having rested its case in the
morning the first thing on the pro-
graInme for the afternoon was the open
ing argument for the defence by Waite &
attorney. Mr.. Edwin E. Heckbert. The
court room was packed jam full when
court came in shortly after three O'Clock
and among the spectators were many
| ladies.
In beginning Mr.. Heckbert stated that
he had expected to be called upon for
his opening argument until today. In the
short openingssremarks Mr.. Heckbert said
he wished to quote a little from the
opening argument of Mr.. Libby the
county attorney, and did SO, reading from,
a paper Mr.. Libby's introduction. He
went on to quote what the county at.
torney had said about the fires. He had
said they were all done by one and the
same person. Mr.. Heck bert said his theory
as to the origin of the fires and to the
manner in which they were caused were
exactly similar. The defense would make
no contradiction to the statement that
those fires were of incendiary origin. The
sta te has shown by its witnesses that all
of these fires were set in almost Identical
| ly the same manner and in the same loca-
| ton as to the part OF the building. This
| is also the claim of the state. Now gentle
men shall be able to show to your salts
| faction that Mr.. Waite did not set these
| fires. Not by his testimony alone, not by
his wife's testimony but by the evidence
OF some of the most reputable persons in
Maine. The state claimed they would
show that Waite was upon the premises
| of all of these fires. You know that the
state has not shown that Waite was on
| the premises of any of these fires except
| ing one. The state has not shown one
overt act of this defendent to connect him
with any of these fires. The firemen
! testified that Waite was at the Temple
| ST. Get fire at 7.3D O'Clock. This is the only
evidence the state has as to Waite being
present at any of these fires. / shall show
you that these two firemen when they
gave that testimony swore falsely. My
answer to the opening argument of the
county attorney shall be in evidence not
| in words.
The defence then called long list of
witnesses, who were duly sworn
PROVING AN ALIBI.
The first witness for the defense was
Harry B. Coe of Portland He is the
chief clerk of the Maine Central railroad,
and is in the Office of F. e. Boothby. On
June last Mr.. Waite called at the office
at II O'Clock. Witness gave Mr.. Waite a
pass.
Witness said he knew the different
punch marks of the different conductors
of the NJ. G. r. r. Each conductor has
different shaped punch and record is
kept of each one.
Witness was asked to look at his record
book and identify the punch marks on a
certain ticket, which had been given tc
Waite.
Mr.. Libby objected to the witness look
ing at the book because it was not made
in his hand writing.
Witness stated from knowledge that
John Jewett, Ed Low Hodgkins and
Foqg had punched that ticket.
| No cross examination.
John Jewett, conductor on the Maine
Central recognized the marks on the
ticket which had been punched by him.
He said that his train left Portland only
at O. clock in the morning.
The ticket was placed in evidence anc
read by Dir. Heckbert. 1t was an excur