Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1900-12-21
THE CASE CLOSED.
Continued from page So

Iy absurd to say that he bore malice
against his father all these years. Mr..
Smith said that Charles story was fully
corroborated by witnesses and that young
Stain had not brains enough to invent
such a yarn.
The testimony of the Thomases stated
that Stain had exhibited come coupons OF
some bonds and in his (hIr. Smith's) be-
lief they were bonds from the Dexter
bank. The Thomases had told three sto-
ries. all of which were contradictory. He
said that evidence that Stain was In
Maine came from one of the strongest
witnesses of the petitioners. The defence
claims that the Steamboat Company S
records did not uphold Charles Stain s
story, but as some of them had been de
stroyed, those OF the months of July and
August 1877, being missing. that was of
no consequence. The way bills had been
in the possession of newspaper reporters
and Mr. Blanchard. the agent, did not
know what papers were taken and what
returned.
Speaking of the r. G. Sanborn re-
ceipt. Mr.. Smith said that it had
brought about much discussion. 1t was
thought that the signature was a for
gerry committed by David l.. Stain but
as Mr.. Sanborn has been found it was
found that the government was in err
ror there Mr.. Smith said that too
much weight had been given to news
paper stories about the Sanborn re-
ceipt and that not enough had been
given the naturalization and other sub
jects of more Importance. That much
had been said about certain jurymen
who have said that the Sanborn re-
ceipt had SO great an influence on the
verdict. who can say that the YER
diet resulted from that one point. 1t is
not a question of whether the verdict
would have been different but
for the Sanborn receipt but what it
ought to be. There is nothing new
about the evidence in the receipt mat
ter. 1t has been carefully considered
before
Young Stain did not give his story in
hope of reward according to the coun-
sci for the State. because the trustees
of the Dexter Bank were in no con-
dition to offer one. They had been en-
gagged in a litigation and although n
reward was offered at one time it was
not at the time of the confession.
II am not going to discuss this new
affidavit of Charles Stain. OF course
there is some reason for this detrac-
ton. / don't know why he did it. 1t
was certainly not on conscientious
grounds. The government case does
not rest on the Charles Stain story.
The information came from him where
by the truth was revealed. but ii does
not detract from its Importance simply
because it came from him.
He said that the petitioners were
placing great hopes in establishing an
alibi. That an alibi was an easy de-
fence and one easy to fabricate. Testi-
mony for an albi was introduced at
the motion for new trial but it was a
signal failure. 1t was apparently false.
He spoke of the testimony showing that
Stain was not in Medfield. Feb. -,
1873. Margaret Steele's testimony he
entirely discredited. He said that
Stain contradicts all statements that
he was in her house the % or the %.
That although she said there WAS i
man named Holt there at the same
time. Stain does not say anything
about it. She says she gave this story
to a man named Johnson but Johnson's
deposition does not say anything about
it.
The counsel declared that the testi-
mony of the witness Fowler was entire
" too thin for belief. He had a diary
he said. that would prove Stains in
nocence but he had destroyed it.
The story of the witnesses for the
defence, Mr.. and Mrs. William II.
Thomas. who said they lived in Stains
house the time the horse was stolen,
has contradcted itself in the various
ahidavits of these two people. She re-
members Stain was at home that night
because she heard him say he was go
ing out after butter. If ever there We're
two witnesses who should be discredit-
ed it is the Thomases. They don't
speak of bringing the ThomaSeS here.
They have been on the stand once and
the result was not at all satisfactory.
He said that J. II. Baker was an old
witness and had been examined thor
oughly. He was going to say that he
and Stain worked at the same place in
rs. but it was found that Stain did not
work there until SS. His diary 10y
which he was going to prove great
things he had destroyed and then he
tried to get up an alibi by inventing a
story about Cromwell and the musk