Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-05-04
FOR THE DEFENCE.
Prof. Eastman's Side of Case
Will Now Be Presented.
Counsel Bartlett Denies III FeeIir g
Between Eastman and Grogan
,udaes Exclude Testimony Before Grand Jury
As Evidence in Case.

Z.
oncuin.r of Fridays session of the East
man murder trial Judge Gaskill as pre-
siding Justice, in very concise opinion,
do, ided to exclude the testimony of the
defendant before the grand jury which
indicted him. The government sough;
ia introduce this testimony.
Immediately after the announcement
of the courts decision. Attorney Cen
Enowiton stated that the government
rested it's case at this point. A recess
of Is minutes was declared to give the
defense an opportunity to prepare 1t
self for its opening.
The opinion of the court as rendered
bv Judge GaslHl. Friday morning. wa.
plain and concise. He said that after
the defendant had been discharged in
the lower court the government
thought 10 investigate the question of
whether ne should be compelled to
stand trial. The question was submit
led to the grand jury. which had the
right TO pass upon the guilt o. inno-
eence Of the man and not 10 find prob
able cause.
Before that body, called with the evil
dent purpose of finding an Indictment,
the defendant was compelled to appear
for the purpose of testifying. He was
there under compulson and had the
alternative of one of two courses. Ell
Their decline to testify on the ground
that he might incriminate himself. or
TO testify. In the event of his choosing
the former it could not have failed TO
have had its influence with the grand
jury which was there to indict him.
The court said that in excluding the
testimony il conformed with the I'M
varying practice of the commonwealth
for over 100 years. He said that while
both of the judges We're district attor-
neys they never compelled a witness
to appear before a grand jury called
for the special purpose of finding an in
dirtment against him.
The intermission heightened out to
an hour, SO that it was not until short
ly before II o'clock that Mr.. Bartlett
began his address to the jury in OPEN
ing the case for the defence. lie talk
ed until the regular noon intermission
at l o'clock and at that tome had not
finished his opening. His address may
be divided into two parts. one in which
he carefully gave the law to the jury
on the different degrees of murder and
manslaughter and during which he
made the important statement that the
affair was a case of eXcuSable hOmi-
eide. and took place by reason OF the
accidental discharge of the old rim-fi
revolver
The second part of his argument was
confined entirely to the relations be-
tween the two men. which he would
show We're not only intimate but cor
dial
Mr. Bartlett said that the govern
ment in this case would claim that ii
was murder with malice aforethought.
In this case the defendant claimed that
al no time did he discharge the ptxtsel
with any intent of killing GrOgan. but
that it was n case of -eNcusable homi-
eide that took place by reason of the
accidental discharge of the old rim fire
revolver.
Mr.. Bartlett also said that any con-
tention which the two men might have
had after the discharge of the old re-
voiVer was due to F,astman's efforts to
assist Grogan and also to prevent Gro
CAMS doing him Eastman any harm
through the use of the weapon which
Grogan had had in hand.
The government claims that nc
friendly relation existed between the
two men and attempted to produce
evidence of a deeply laid scheme ana
that there was i'll feeling because Of
the lens business. This latter asser-
ton the government claims was the
motive for the crime.
Mr. Rartlett before he took up the
actual relations of the two men, re-
NiGNFa1 hui . Of tAr a n
tcring Harvard in 1887. He told OF
Eastman's marriage to the daughter OF
the late Alvin G.. Clark in 1892. and the
death Of Mr.. Clark in 1897. Two years
previous to that he met Mr.. Grogan
but only since 1897 had he been init
mate with him. He said that the len.
business after Mr.. Clark's death was
IN the hands of trustees and was OF
Tered to Eastman. but the latter re-
fuFed, abandoning his idea in March
1899.
AT the suggestion of members of the
family, including Mrs. Eastman. Gro
gan took the business in February
100. Tho two men We're constantly
conferring regarding the business
Eastman assisting Grogan and finally
arranging 50 that the latter obtalnet
me business at a good price.
Mr.. Bartlett said that it was de
hsht to Eastman that GrOgan got OF
so well. To show the cordial relation:
between the two men, Nj. Bartlett salC
mat on June 2s, 1900. less than week
neiore the tragedy. Eastman voluntar-
ny paid Grogan'S water rate while the
ia,ter was in New York. so that the
water would not be cut off from Gro
gan s house. Mr.. Bartlett denied tha
there was any quarrel between the
men IN November. 1899, as was testified
&c by John Grogan.
kecess was taken for an hour. Sool
alier adjournment of the court for tn
noon recess it was announced tina
Juror Grant had been taken i'll, and q
10 the court came in and by order q
.i'e Judges the trial was put over unit!
tomorrow.