Pike County press. (Milford, Pa.) 1895-1925, 1900-09-21

wise me. with patience aud careful
scrutiny he went over the case. pro
nounced II without a flaw, emphatic
ally assuring me that there was not
the least doubt OF Stetson's guilt, and
congratulated me in saying that | was
fortunate in having for my first muir
der case one in which the facts and
proof we're so clear.
"The trial came. proved my
charge. The defense was weak, in the
nature OF things-practically no de-
fense at all On the stand Stetson ad-
mitted the threats and the letter, but
denied the crime, and again assert
ed that he had lost his knife on the
day he had displayed it. There was
a witness to prove that he had so de-
clared at / o'clock before the muir
der and had been seen searching his
clothes for It. His mother swore posi-
lively that he had arrived home be-
fore the arrival of the o'clock train
and had gone directly to bed, being
under the influence of liquor, as she
admitted. She testified that 1t was
her habit to observe the whistle of
the train as a check upon her clock,
and she knew that train was not in
when her son had arrived home. The
deduction being, of course, that as he
had not gone out again and as that
train brought Crossman they could
not have met. To strengthen this was
the testimony that the train that night
was at least FIVE minutes late This,
with the further fact that 1t was
shown that there were no stains of
blood on Stetson's clothes, as might
naturally be expected, after such an
encounter, constituted all the defense.
Stetson was convicted and sentenced
to be hanged, and In time was duly
executed, at each successive step to
his death solemnly asserting his in
nocence OF the crime, such being his
last words on the scaffold.
II presume said the lawyer, look
ing about our group hanging our in
terest earnestly on his tale, Il pre-
sumo that though all of you have de-
nounced circumstantial evidence as
having too great an element of uncer-
tainty to be wholly convincing where
the point of taking a mans life is
concerned you, none of you, have any
doubt on my statement that the YER
dict in this case was a righteous one,
and that the hanging of Stetson was
justified"
He paused for a reply. All agreed
that it was so, and one of us re-
marked that he thought the evidence
was rather direct than circumstantial.
mo" replied the lawyer, ''it was
wholly circumstantial."
But" persisted the on who had
spoken, mot like that in the case we
were discussing"
Perhaps" replied the lawyer "But
decline to discuss or speak of that
case for the reasons I have given you
My point is on this case of circum-
stantial evidence, a jury of twelve
men sworn to do their duty could
have brought in no other verdict than
1t did"
All of us agreed that this was So
well gentleman, Albert Stetson
was an innocent man. He had not
caused the death of Henry Crossman." !"
A gasp ran over the group as all
of us caught our breath.
"One night, six months after the
execution of Stetson, when l was
about retiring for the night, a physi-
clan with whom l was well acquaint-
ed hurriedly drove up to my door and
asked me to accompany him to the
bedside of a dying man, who for a
day had been praying and begging
that | should be brought to him. | en-
| tered the carriage with the doctor,
who told me that the case had been
under his charge for six months and
had completely baffled him. as he
could find no real disease, and that
he had become convinced that the
wasting away was due to a mental
trouble that he could not reach.
The man was Andrew Mincher He
was very weak when l reached him,
but when | sat beside him the excite
ment of my coming gave him the
strength to confess in the presence
of the physician and myself that he,
and not Albert Stetson, had murdered
Henry Crossman. His story was brief.
He had borne an implacable hatred
of Crossman and in secret nursed all
sorts of ideas of vengeance against
the man who had wronged him. When
the chicken-note episode came be-
tween Crossman and Stetson he saw
in Stetson and his anger the instru-
ment of his revenge and sought to fan
the flames to a pitch when Stetson
would infiict injury on Crossman. But
! when travelling to the city with Stet-
son he found that his anger was burn
ing out; after the first fierce outburst
he conceived the idea of killing Cross
man himself, knowing that all the pre-
| vious circumstances would direct sus-
picion wholly and inevitably to Stet-
| son. To that end also he had taken
the dirk knife from Stetson's pocket,
carried as 1t was loosely in the side
| pocket of a sack coat without it's own
ers knowledge. Arriving home early,
| he had laid in wait for Crossman and
was in waiting when Stetson passed
on his way home. When Crossman
| came he murdered him deliberately,
throwing Stetson's knife beside the
body.
81 embraced these facts In an afh-
davit, to which we took oath, with the
physician as a subscribing witness
Mincher died the next day"
The lawyer ended his tale and we
| listened for his deduction. But he
smoked his cigar in silence.
Then" finally, said one of us, you
do not believe in circumstantial evi
dence?"
Il am too much of lawyer" was the
reply, mot to admit that logically due
weight must be given to it. But after
my experience l would not send any
one to his death on such evidence
alone. Place him where rectification
could not be made if error had been
made. The law is wrong on this mat
ter. The law has been wrong in previ
Gus years. There was a time when the
penalty of robbery was death. To in
fict 1t now would be considered bar
barous. Gentlemen, the time is not far
distant when to infliet the penalty OF
death for murder proven by circum
stantial evidence alone will be
thought just as barbarous. It will be
Imprisonment for life, when If subse
quent revelation, as in the case
have recited. is made. life will moi