The Newtown bee., 1903-05-29

llulIC. bCSIucS UlcJc IS uO eNlueuCc that Backer ever admitted the making
 of any such offer, but he says he
 denied it. So the only evidence that
 such offer was made rests upon the
 evidence of J. J. Treadwell of the con-
 versation on the highway, which is
 denied by Backer. Jacob Backer car
 ried Mary and Alfred Simons to Brook
 field the week following the marriage.
 As this occurred subsequent to the
 marriage, l cannot see that it in any
 way connected Backer. although it may
 have been by Backer'S orders, which
 he denies. The conversation between
 Boerum and Backer at the adjourned
 town meeting, las testified by them
 respectively, differs but slightly.
 Boerum said Backer said he had two
 men who would marry her. Backer
 says he said two men had been to see
 her at RichmOnd'S, meaning Simons
 and Freeman, and that she expected |
 to marry one of them. His further |
 statement that the selectmen must |
 have nothing to do with it would neg
 ative any unfavorable influence. That |
 is substantially the case against Back
 CT.
 Now Jennings connection with the |
 marriage ceremony is more direct. He
 issued the license and performed the
 ceremony. The testimony that he
 saw Simons for the first time on the |
 day of the marriage is uncontradicted |
 by any one. or in any way. That he expressed. his unbelief that she would
 marry him appears very natural. tie
 marriage of a negro to white woman
 is so unusual that one would be eX-
 cusable for incredulity. The careless
 manner in which the stub of the F.
 cense is filled in and the points in
 which it differed from the license it.
 self furnishes no basis to connect him
 criminally with the case. There are
 other features about this stub and
 that Jennings was not very familiar
 with the statutory requirements of
 such duties. That he should become
 surety for Mary's board at Mrs Conk-
 lin's request is something. I do not un-
 derstand. The fact considered alone
 is not criminal, and it has not been
 connected in any way with the corpus
 delicti so as to change it's Character; j it convicts him of small business sa- gacity, which apparently brought it's
 own punishment in the loss. From
 the facts proved there are none to show that Jennings had any know ledge or Simons' imbecility. Nothing in his appearance, other than his color, ; suggested that he differed from other men who desired to marry white wOm- en, or that he was not entitled to re-
 ceive at the hands of the registrar the authority to marry whom he pleased
 or when he pleased. Mary Britton he has known for many years. She had dealt with him, purchasing goods and acting in any ordinary manner, from which no valid reason could be inferred why she did not have the privilege to marry whom she chose. The conver- sation between Keith Joyce and Jen- nings, in which the statement that they were two fools we'll matched is all legged to have occurred, is denied by Jennings. The credibility of the two stand about equal. Jennings is a defendant fighting for his liberty, and Joyce is closely connected with the prosecution, hence there is not that l preponderance of evidence required in . civil cases, much less the removal of !, reasonable doubt necessary in criminal prosecutions. Fred Dayton's evidence : upon this point has been stricken out 1 at his own request, as he does not wish l. to be recorded as testifying to any d such thing, as he says there was nc F such conversation. Sylvester Free. l. mans testimony is that he neither re- 2 ceived any thing nor was promised a any thing by either Jennings or Back d CT. It is unnecessary to consider 1t al n element in the case. 1t was negative D testimony ana does not contradict any if evidence of the state. As there wal '- no proof that any thing had been paid :. his testimony does not weaken the g prosecution or strengthen the defense $ In view of the attack upon his credi l. bility it IS fortunate that neither thu n state nor defense were dependent upol e his evidence. Who unlocked ant Il opened the Town hall on the night O. - the meeting of the Joint Board on No l. vember 8 last. Two men claim thi! '- honor, Elijah Brown and Wildman n but as 1 am unable to perceive it's rel l. evancy as a fact in proving the guilt o l. innocence of the defendants am go r ing to leave it an open question. I d perhaps served to introduce Wild l. mans testimony, that he saw Backe d at Jennings store that night, suggest | ing an inference that they wer' + there conspiring and arranging r the details of this marriage, bu t as the same witness says that Selectmar ,- Boerum was also present, that would . necessarily destroy any basis fol l. such an inference if any existed r because MT Boerum is not charged a! t being party to the criminal transac' s tiOn-1 have carefully and pltiently c analysed the evidence and made the 6 proper application to the several issues t presented by this case. Whether AL f fred Simons and Mary Britton are inn s beetles or feeble minded is problem 7. dilfiucult of solution. Thellegal pre- }: sumption of sanity protects them un u til satisfactory evidence overcomes it. y The law jealOuSly guards the rights u and liberties of every one and will not