Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-09-27

T l.
tai 10 the governments case. the fact
| that IIeselton's shoes were found at
Changers after the body was found
shneiess outside, is helpful fact be
cause it has a tendency to show that he
was recently in the house of Granger,
hut it is not an essential fact as there
is better evidence to show that he was
there; therefore it is not necessary that
the State should prove beyond reasons
able doubt that the shoes were there or
that TREY were Heselton's. SO with the
nat and other apparel.
The government must satisfy you
then beyond reasonable doubt of these
essential facts:
l. That Albert H. Heselton is dead.
?. That his death was caused by the
defendant
g. That it was caused unlawfully.
As 10 the first material fact you viii
haze no difficulty, il is admitted th5
Heselton Is dead.
The other two facts are denied ald
| must be proved by the State. The safe
has introduced witnesses upon waose
| testimony il relies to prove that .ames
| Changer was the cause of the desth of
Heselton ana without attempting to re
call it in detail may be summarized as
follows: That Heselton vas at
| Changers house in the evening of Sat
urday, April ) last; that several other
persons We're there and tha' all drank
more or less intoxicating liquors, in
Guiding the defendant. hb son Jacob
ana his sons Wife Mary: tlat they con-
tinued drinking until quite late in the
/
| bed: that jacobs wife 'emained longer
| drinking ana then re-ired to an adj
| JOINING room and Ia down upon Il
| lounge; that somefhere near mid
night there is sane difference as
TO the exact time-the defend
ant and Heseton got into an alterca-
| ton about an Improper proposal of
/ HeSelton to May Granger.
| Now up to his point there is no
material dispue as to the facts. There
are differences between the statements
of the goVeriment witness Phelps and
the delendaat as to just what occurred
at this alercation. That there was
d tussIe ind blows between them. is
shown b. both.
| Now the State contends that it was
during this conflict that Granger
stabb,d Heselton with knife, and
that the stab caused his death.
| remembering that the burden is on
| thf State to convince you of this be-
| y,nd Il reasonable doubt. bring your
minds carefully to evidence. The only
WITNESS for the State as to this oc-
| currence is Phelps. VINO has told you
his story-his recollection of what oc-
cured. 1t was. in substance. that he
saw Heseltcn so into the front room
where Mary Granger was, that soon
| the defendant went in: that he heard
| defendant call w stairs to jacob that
| Heselton was making improper adj
'lnces to his wife-using coarser
| tNpression; that he saw defendant
| nush Hcselton toward the kitchen
| lOor: that he heard blow struck but
| lid not know who struck it; that he
| then saw Heselton strike Granger and
| knock him down or nearly so: that
| he heard Granger say on getting to
| mis- feet: II will cut your heart out, !"
ana let me get my knife ont" that
| he saw Granger put his hand in his
| pocket ana taking il out made motions
! as if opening it, but that he. the wit
| ness, did rot see the knife: that he
| ,len saw Granger make Il thrust with
! his right hand towards Heselton :
| breast: that very soon after Granger
| ana HeSelton had a scufie near the
| kitchen door when Heselton struck the
| defendant on the head and then Phelps,
| the witness. stepped between and part
| al them ana got Heselton out of the
| house ana went away.
Nov up to this point observe the
| evidence does not show absolutely that
| Granger struck Heselton with knife
| out the government relies upon other
| ircumstantial evidence which it CON
| ends proves that he did 50 strike him.
| This evidence in brief is that tending
| 10 show that HeseltOn was soon foun6
| dead beside the read a short distance
| rom Changers house; that on exam
| inatiOn he WAS found TO have u wound
| in the breast, his garments saturate
| With blood that the wound was such
| as might have been made with knife
| like the one exhibited here and which
| The government claims to have shown
belonged to the defendant and was
| taken from him the morning after the
ARRAY. Further than this. the gov
| eminent contends that the evidence
shows that this knife had blood on its
| blade. that it looked as if it had been
| roughly wiped and that on analysis
| this blood is shown to have been in
| the opinion Of chemist human blood.
| IN proof Of the mortal character Of
| the wound the State relies upon the
| testimony of surgeons who examined
| il together with the fact that the man
| died soon after receiving the cut. Now
| this is in substance the evidence re-
| lied on Dy the government for a con-
viction of the defendant.
The defendant through his counsel,
if | understand them. raises several
| contentious.
| First That the defendant did not
stab Heselton, therefore could not have
! killed MIN.
Second: That the wound found up
on Heselton did not cause his death.
Third: That if the defendant did
stab Heselton he did it in defence of
his sons wife, therefore he was jus
| tilted.
IL the first contention of the de-
PENDANT is made good--or rather if the
State has not shown to moral Ger
,ainty that the defendant did cut Hes
| elton, then the other contentious Will
not trouble YOU, for your verdict must
| be in that case thar he is not guilty.
M al nd