The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-09-28

could they see all that he was thinking
about they would know that he was the
guilty party. He said the State would
put in evidence to show that Waite had
told people he had set these fires and de-
scrihed how he had done it even down to
the minutest details. 81 had enumerated
several buildings in which he had started
these fires and spoken of them all as his
work in general way.
Mr. Libby then said he would divide
his case into three parts. He would first
show the motive, then the opportunity
and lastly the fact that he had set the
fires.
A long list of witnesses were called,
and sworn after which the first witness
for the State was called.
Charles M. Rice was the first witness.
He said that Waite, whom he knew
came to his store in the spring of 1897
and had considerable conversation with
him in regard to putting his store under
the respondents care. He said that
Waite's plan was to have key to the
store, visit it two or three times night
and in case of accident OF fire to send a
team for the owner Waite visited the
store several times to urge Mr.. Rice to
employ him to take care of his store but
the witness did not employ him.
At this point Mr.. Heckbert, Waites
attorney, objected to the admission of
this testimony on the ground that as the
States attorney had said he intended TO
show motive by this witness and Waite
did not visit him until the spring of '97
some of the fires had occurred before this
visit and therefore a motive could not be
shown by his testimony. The court didsnot
sustain the objection .and Mr. Heckbert
wished an exception to be noted.
The cross examination was very brief
and no new facts were brought out nor
was the testimony, in any manner,
weakened.
L. NJ. Leighton of the firm of Hooper,
Son & Leighton, was the next witness.
He said that Waite had come to the store
and asked that he be employed as either
an inside or an outside Waterman. After
several visits Waite had been employed as
an outside Waterman. This was in the
fall Of 1857. 1t was before the fires which
were supposed to be of incendiary origin
took place.
On cross examination Mr.. Leighton
said that he was positive Waite had been
employed before the fires began. Witness
stated what the plan of Waite was for a
frelproteetive patrol. MIR. Heckbert was
very anxious that Mr.. Leighton should
produce his books and show exactly when
Waite was employed. After some argu-
ment Mr.. Leighton was asked to bring
his books into court to show exactly
when Waite was employed. Witness did
not know whether OF not Waite wore a
uniform when he first came but he re-
memhered that he did wear uniform
towards the last end of his service for
Mr.. Leighton. Waite was not given p
key to the store and was only employed
as an outside watchman.
Clarence A. Weston, a Wholesale grocer
on Commercial street said that Waite had
come to him with proposition to watch
and care for his store. After some time
Waite was employed as an outside watch
man and was paid 81 a month for his
services This was in February or March
The man was not given a key to the
store.
On cross examination Mr.. Weston said
that as far rs he knew Waite had per-
formed his duty satisfactorily. He had
laid special stress when he was employed
on his seeing that the store door was
locked and that the place was not bur
glarized.
Robert G. Libby the owner of a laundry
on Congress street said he had employed
Waite as q Waterman some time in the
fall or winter, he could not say just
when it was. He thought it was some
time in November Waite was to see that
the doors Of the laundry were locked and
that any accident which occurred in the
place was reported to Mr.. Libby. He
paid him for these services 81 q month
and tho witness thought that Waite was
IN his employ TWO months.
On cross examination MIR. Heckbert
tried to get Mr. Libby to fix the date on
which he had employed Waite. The wit
ness was unable TO do so. He said it
might have been anywhere between No
vember and March. There was no record
to show when Waite had been employed
because Waite had been paid for one
months work out OF the witness pocket.
On one occasion Waite had notified the
witness that the safe in the WITNESSES
laundry was unlocked and some of Mr.,
Libby's employees had gone to the store
and locked it.
Capt. A. D. Butler of the chemical
engine, was called after brief recess He
said that he kept record of all bell and
still alarms and produced it. On Dec.
II, 65l q. M, there was an alarm from
box "A He went to the fire. The blaze
was up one flight of stairs in the Clapp
block on Middle street and was ON the
landing at the foot of the second fight of
stairs. A gas meter had been disconnect-
ed and the fire had gone up into the
second floor. 1t was hallway fire and
had been started in lot of refuse.
There was an alarm from box on Dec
II in the Clapp block on Congress street.
Capt. Butler said tat the chemical men
had gone to the rear of the building,
climbed up the fire escape and into the
hallway on the first floor. This fire was
in narrow hallway between staircase
and barber shop.
Witness had not attended the FIRE in the
harrington block On December 81 there
was still alarm which the witness had
not attended. There was still alarm
ten minutes before the bell alarm at 7.l5
O'Clock on December 70. This was at the
corner of Temple and Congress streets
This fire was ut the head Of the first flight
OF stairs. There was dutch lock-
on the door of the room at the right of
tho staircase. IN this room ths fire oe
CURED. He did not see Waite at this fire
Al 10 p. m. December u
berland kank binding on Exchange
street. The chemical crew forced it's way
into the building TO thu third floor and
found a fire in q water closet.
The next fire was on June 18th from
fox 10 at II 5 O'Clock in the Forester
hall, Cushman building. This fire wa
in the closer on the third floor.
On june Il there WAS an alarm from
reg It , q o'clock. A still alarm pre-
c-dad the bell alarm. HE FIRE was on thu