Daily Kennebec journal., 1901-11-13
IHeRlAULT GUILTY.
(Continued from page ~

NJ ur'tn ,,,ir,ed bv some other person
N,n''.i't ,snn an trial is the guilty par
ty: ,,,,,s must be established
ih'sI f.uirn,hlr doubt. This does not
w w ~, ~ loud all doubt. TINS doup, - .;
n'"" n ~, ~ = reason arising from thc ~
hence. which a jurSmaIl , Saa hn hased
,;,uslx hold Your opinion must pe o"
.M'oun't M ~, eWi5euce and that alone ii,
RI SIM IN the position OF either S,,r.
the States claim ,,Inmeni IS tnao on his way
,.n,iitb station on the mofhius ~ w.
March 18th. That he called ~ o a ride
ty,n houscs on the road. was sl.. ~ iast
for the portion OF tne isawnc,red was 3D. down the
,n,,. road. The body was founu iuTt Tt,ran
Later by lumbcrmen on the ariSe' ny ;,nmest
/, met wounds We're found AZ tllc ~, - -,
,nI ,Iso a knife wound and ifaS'uit ~
~" ~, LII, Iii, There is no question that th'S
was the body of Pare and that ne ny
Ills death by violence infhctcu = 1om,
external agency. The intent VII rN -, ~.
i, ~ iii and the crime is murdcr III 'tt
first ,,,+ \I.xander
Tho state further claims thdt Ni.Na"u,' !',1 ~
r,rrio was the man VINO commune ~,
,,,ur,l,r To subStantiatt TINS titN MI ~;
,lnra evidence that Joseph MURRAY "i
"o,o 'oJ snowshOe tracks identified as
troSc or the respondent leading t"waru
The scene Of the murder ne ,;,ra.
clHimS that this testimony Is UNI 't,u, ,tr, "
VI
ing. . h.,,., ,rov.n that
Tcrrio WAS in Il poverty STRICKEN C",'uttu
,,,.jor 10 the murder. and that Short'H -
Los. tn, crime he began paying out III diS-
,.harr, al his debts The defence "cnicS
,hi4 and introduces testimony Whl'" ~!
Lain, r,futcS III" assumption. IL
simeon Newton IS introduced ~ ~
STAT, 10 establish tn" fact that i"rfi"
tracks were seen ON the uaH OF W inu' @
der near the place where the nouN w"
tl A.t Z.
ND tIat tn,. respondent himself WAS ac
tualIv III the vicinity with a rillt: ~
defence, places no reliance upon ms teS-
timony. and seeks I" onse' II ny wv - @u
timuuE nt ntncrS "H' P'H9'" - - II
the same day. ,
rhr state has also introduced experts
f., nroNt. an undoubtCd microscope re-
.cr,hlauc,. hrtween the firing pm ot Ter
,in.s rifIr and the primer of the cartridge
f,1ir,I beside the body, 50 as ~ prove ne
ynn,l u doubt that the cartridGc was uis-
charged hy that weapon intN tl'tINl u
h,y, discovered various marks ShoWllS
, relation between each shell examine
ana the firing pin OF the rifle that ilrtd
II .,ud that the demonstration OF SClenc,
cannot be questioned. Ihest HlNtSisH
items they supplement- hN photographs IL
IIStrating their experiments.
TN. defence denies the reaSonabiencSS
uf the conclusions. and claims that IN,
states EXPERTS are too imaginative. Ihe\
also produc" experts who are Unable 10
.ud the markings referred to. IhS teS-
.t,,,r,- IN, STAT, il its turn ATTEMPTS t
it.,,.ri,
~, NV, tn. ,vhibits before YOU. Thes
ynu ;rc to examine III connection witt.
this testimony
.,.l,, stot. aIs, LAYS great stress upOi
,b,. t,lnissinns ana conflicting statement
- tT, ,,risonn,. The defence claims thai
Ill IN. eear frnn, tbns. which amy
~, f -. o1,,r.tion .nd circumstances
"iiil ,nain when ucclIsrd ot such 1!
~, ~
Thc defence also introduces affirmative
.i.h1,'n -, ,b., ,.,,,lrc of an 1lihi which
rhr,tt'5 III. ..,,idanrn iii thn nart III
,ic c,a,n NJ. attnrk tho testimony of