Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-06-19

ANYTHING about the money when wa
with him. so that he could write /
Edown, that he would pay him hand
somelv." 1t is further claimed on tn,
part of the plaintiff, that at the stab,,
of the plaintiff, conversation wa.
had between Percival and jackson il
which percival made the admission
that he had taken the money. | will
not undertake to repeat the words. they
have been given by the witnesses
and YOU will remember what was sait
Ebv the hoy Leslie. and by Mrs. Giddings
and by Mrs. Ward, who say they wer,
present at the second conversational dc
NOT remember whether Mrs. Giddings was
/ present nj the firSt-at any rate the boy
was, present, as he says, and has given
YOU the conversation as he says he heard
il. Mrs. GiddingS and Mrs. Ward. and
! the bty. SLY that the confessional you
| believe these WitnoSSeS-WaS such as to
| foster the responsibility upon Mr.. Perez
| val; that he in effect admitted that he
took the money. In response to that the
| drft ndant relies upon the inherent inn
| probability, as it is commended, that any
| such statement was made in the FIRST
place. They contend thatfa man Of ordi-
! nary intelligence and understanding
/ would not be likely, if he had commit
| ted a crime of this sort, to make an open
| confession undcr such circumstances
That it is improbable from it's nature.
ard further. that the person to whom the
| confession was made has denied that he
J ever admitted to him thai he took the
| money. You heard the denial of Jackson
Ipon the stand You heard the state
mont of the witnesses who. say they
heard tho statement of the Witnesses
who say they heard the conversation, and
it is the important duty of this jury to
determine whether or not that confession
was made. 1t is claimed further, on the
part of the defence, that other money
was being talked about at that time, and
that it is possible the parties who heard
the conversation may have got the mat
tes.5 mixed. 1t is further claimed that
the SameHcSS of the statements by the
different witnesses show internal evidence
OF their having been compared and agreed
upon by the witnesses; otherwise that
there probably would have been some lit
tie difference in the statements of the
several witnesses as to what they heard
nearly \ year ago in the stable. 1t is fur
Their claimed that the witnesses to the in
tcrview are Interested witnesses: that
that the boy would be interested for his
father; that the wife would be Interested
for her husband. And 1t is contended
that Mrs. Bryant. who testified to the
first interview, would be somewhat in
terestcd from the fact that she desired
Mr.. Percival to pay Mr.. Jackson, her
brother, for the interview, and she said
he did not. Now there is another wit
ness to the conversation in the stable,
VINO IS not Il nl'nDer OF lhe l1mlly' ana
so far as the testimony here shows has
no interest IN thr hlittcr. she Is neish-
boz and was invited in there by Mrs. Cid
GlA9S LOT the purpose OF nearing the con
NerSatloh ana you must Judge. gentle
men, as best you can from all the cir
cumStanceS IN thr caSe-from her appear
ance Spon me stand-Whether she mas
lo'd inc uuth ana maze an accurate
statement Of what she heard upon that
coca sion.
NOW nave run over inc more pFoInl-
nent factS. There mas been testimony IN
troduccd nero Tor the purpose OF i'm
petcrlG 'ne cfeG rhnr Oh me otd"ndant
1mohy ntfcdnred on ms behalf by neigh
p"Ts &nd cltiZenS CT emma VINO nave beGn
Called mere as I" ms reputation for truth
luln9ss IN the community. And you must
decide from the evidence, not only of the
imrHdchnE but ai@o of the other wit
nesSeS. win regard To MS reputation, and
from MS ap1GarahCc upon the stand, anu
upon so much OF the evidence as reveals
TO you ms past history, and determine
whether ne Is man to be believed or
not
NOW /, , me pl9aint1il mad money that
DAY, ana IN" defendant got 1t and has
converted IL to MS own use, the question
Wll arise, now muchZ Because you are
70 "cs'I ,i'!iIc we damages ~ inns case II
So% nlId the utlthuant guilty; NOW as
pc;''ihE ul!on ms II Is argued by coun-
SCI 10. ior tIlc ue ,.e thlt the condition
{" IN" 'iIalntlit upon mat Sunday was
Such aS TO render any statement II" may
nave mace WIN rcGrd |" the amount OF
money ne had IN ms possession at that
liil' uhfcilihi". mere nave been num-
-, VI Mi,ttSNe8 WI" nave tcStlned nero
~ 'nti'l IONS Oh me pLnhtllf Is 70 the
am1 IT,, w miUitf ne Iia upon lhat dsy,
ana nitSt run through me testimony for
re re n'tp1Se OF &ettnS- together the diff
ier.it StIt'tncntS winch witnesses nave
trStincu th"' the piaihtlil mas made re-
81 ulhS thF aihofnt or money mat he har
III ice ms POSSESSION at that Time The plain
Nv nov says thaI ne had $2u3 Mrs Mail
conn HlyS ne tolq her, q day or two af-
a and tt'', loss OF the money, that ne mac
~ OF ms own money W. OF railroad
mIo iii S sc VI 81 Ka'ph Estes money,
h''hinS 9n' IN an. MT. Crrln SproWte says
~ IT, '"ii MN mat ne hld s. express money,
H."o ol ms own money ana va railroad
nl|'t%, u,hinS %i%1. Mr. A. ID Miller
cc'NS ne ,ol1 nm thlI n" mad three or
l'ul Hu',Iod doiLlfS. me defendant says
Nv to.h MN tnal ne loSl ms coat and
~ "''h'tnnoh Win %izo 10 Sl3o IN IT. Mr..
!, = ,.d Il uill n says ne told nm that he
lo5, %io' or %Io. ~" OF winch was his own
5tId me rest pHIohScd TO the railroad. Mr..
Nt.l,'ohl say" ne tolh MN ne had 300 IN
n anu tnprhS 70 make S5W or $lW).
''' o'nGr WlthcSS mas testified that he
s.'la ne nId certain cneCkS. but That he
SlppPru me payment OF the checks. Now,
S'ntItihen' IL ne loSt the money did the
so NAT Is q question for your deter