Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1900-12-21

the Sanborn receipt should have blu,
h'tie weight. Judge Peters said there
was no doubt that it had great weigh!
IN bringing the jury to a verdict.
In regard to the claim that the alb
was manufactured by the Thomases
Mr.. Barker said that the Thomases
hated stain and he had the utmost diff
ficulty in getting them to talk, the ef-
fort. taking four hours They hated
stain and didn't want to testify. He
| tried to get them to come to Maine but
they would not.
1T seems to me if Baker burned uJ
the diary for bad purpose ii was very
| strange In him to come into court and
| say like an honest man that he de-
stroyed 1t because he didn't want to
come into court. 1t seems to me that
ne would have said he lost it, or some
story like that"
Here Mr.. Barker spoke of Mr.. Alon-
20 Fay. declaring that he purjured him
self, Wednesday evening, when he said
he came to Maine not as a witness. He
spoke of the articles Fay had written
for the Boston Globe and said he was
trickster, fraud and tool of the
prosecution of Stain and Cromwell.
1T must have been an expert crook
VINO would tell everybody who had
been to Maine and showed coupons,
saying his father had given them to
him. And they say David Stain did
that. Nearly every witness put on has
spoken in our favor whether they
meant to or not Mr.. Bartlett was put
M I x.fhx I
field. another of those women who was
thrilled and because a man gave her
an insolent look she says a murder has
been committed.
Mr.. Barker said that he would like
to have had more witnesses present.
but the case was being conducted at
his own expense. as far as he knew.
Mrs. Marshall and Mrs. Rowe, whose
aflidavits | offer. are just as good as
though Charles Hamant stood before
Us and said that he went down to
Stains house the day the horse was
stolen and saw Stain there. We have
offered Mr.. HARDWOOD as a witness, q
man of unimpeachable character
against whom the cry of stain gang"
cannot be raised. Mr. Benjamin. as
is a witness fof the petitioners.
The State representatives are paid.
while we pay our own expenses. Mr..
Drury is present for the sake of hu-
manity. Mr.. Crosby because after all
these years he still believes in the in
nocence of these men"
Mr.. Barker declared that an alibi
had been established beyond a doubt.
The treat. which had been ridiculed by
the counsel for the State. is substan-
tiated by the books of the Putnam
Nail Works. The date Of the treat the
horse stealing. the freshet, IS fixed be-
yond doubt, and ii is proven that
David l.. Stain was in Medfield on
that date. Feb. %. 1878. The supreme
court did not hear this evidence II
Judge Peters We're here now. am
sure he would be convinced of the in
ncCence of Stain and Cromwell in the
Dexter matter. | say that the fact
that the Il. e. Sanborn receipt is not
n forgery alone proves that the YER
dict was wrong. but we have more to
offer. We have a certain and indisput-
able alibi.'
In closing Mr.. Barker said that this
was the last trial of the case If the
pardon was not granted Stain and
Cromwell would end their lives in
prison with no further effort for re-
lease. one is II and the other 20 years
old. one has an aged wife. They are
in Thomaston for a crime they did
not commit. They We're not good men.
but if innocent they should be freed
and if guilty they should be kept
where they are. They have now been
there Il years, and if they are innocent
let us make them Christmas present
of their liberty at the close of the 18th
century.