Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-06-19
EVENLY DIVIDED.
Continued from page ~

| mony put in here with regard to GER
| tain anonymous letters, which it is said
had been written and left about the
premises. But, gentlemen, you will not
| he troubled with any consideration OF
the letters which were not admitted in
to the case There is one letter in the
case, and certain writings which are
| proved, or claimed to have been proved
on the part of the plaintiff, as the writ
| ing of the defendant or his agent, Mr..
/ Perkins. One letter which it is claimed
1 was written-and l do not think it was
/ denied, postal card, which has no
reference to any facts in this case-by
/ Mrs Percival. And also Il little note
which has no reference to facts in this
case. written by Mrs. Percival, and put
in for the purpose of showing her hand
writing. But, gentlemen, all evidence
relating to anonymous letters is out of
this case because the letters themselves
were not admitted. And they are not
| in because there was not evidence in
1 troduced here sufficient to connect Mr..
| Pcrcival, directly or indirectly, with
| the writing of them, and so they We're
| excluded and are out of the case.
Now, gentlemen, the defence is de-
NAL. The defendant says he did not
take the money of the plaintiff. SO
that this brings up the issue which you
are to determine, and the only issue in
the case-Did the defendant take any
of the money of the plaintiff? In
volved in that ISSUE if you shall
find that any was taken, would
be the amount. Now you remember,
in substance, the testimony of the
plaintiff with regard to the manner of
the loss. 1t is contended that he lost
it with his coat from the stable where
he left it on the night or evening Of
Aug II. The defendant relies upon
certain circumstances connected with
the actions of the plaintiff as being
corroboratiVe to n certain degree of his
contention that he is not guilty in this
case. First, he says that on the 18th
day of August, 1902. the plaintiff was
not in n condition which renders 1t
probable that he remembered clearly
what he did that afternoon, when or
how he left the money, or what amount
his pOcketbOok contained; because he
says, and has introduced certain wit
nesses here to prove, that the plain
tiff was in a badly intoxicated condi-
ton on that afternoon. Several wit
nesscs have been introduced here be-
fore you who have testified to what
they saw, two of them as to the drink
ing at the house on the ridge. And
then certain witnesses along the road
from the ridge to Weeks Mills have
testified as to seeing him in the wagon
and his condition as apparent by OBJ
scrvation as he drove along; and also
certain witnesses have testified to his
condition at the stable after his arrival
there Now other witnesses have tes-
titled directly to the contrary that
there were no indications whatever of
intoxication about him on that after
noon. that they observed. So that it
becomes a question for you, gentle
men, as bearing upon the probabilities
of his recollection of what occurred
that afternoon, to determine whether
or not he was intoxicated. and if so,
how badly. Now it makes no differ
ence, what his condition was, if he lost
his money and the defendant got it
and has converted it to his own use.
But the purpose of introducing the
testimony is to show his condition that
afternoon, as bearing upon the pos
sibiity OF his losing the money in other
ways. 90, StllIlcIlltIl, 'iNltl lliillN ~ S'~'A
minds what his condition was that af-
ternoon as bearing on the possibilities
or otherwise that he lost the money
in the way in which he now claims.
Second, it is contended that it is
very improbable that Mr.. Percival, the
defendant, should have taken this
money. 1t is contcnded that he is
man of some means; that he has no
family excepting his wife; that he Is a
ncighbOr of the plaintiff, and that, so
far rs appears in the testimony, ne
had been on friendly terms with the
plaintiff. Therefore it is argued that
it is improbable that he would steal
or take away money in the manner
that it is claimed to have been taken.
The plaintiff in reply to the contentious
of the defence. says that on that al
tcrnoon of Sunday, although he may
have drank some liquor, he was not
intoxicated. That after his return to
Weeks Mills he was able to go to his
store and there do some little business.
you will remember what it WaS-and
that he then put some money IN ms
porketbook before returning to the
stable, and that he was taken at the
stable with an attack of hemorrhage
from the stomach, q complaint Win
which he had been afflicted for num-
Der of years, and that that was the
cause of his Illness at that time, ana
not the use of liquor. And that he went
| to bed later by reason of the stomach
| trouble and not from the oVer-use OF
| Intoxicating liquors. But, as l said be
| fore, the evidence upon which the
| plaintiff relies is the confession Whlch
| it is claimed the defendant made TO
! Jackson. Now the plaintiff contends
that he made in effect confessions upon
| three different occasions. That that
confession was heard by at least nVe
| different persons. First out at Bel
mont, where the defendant went to con-
fer with jackson, the fortune teller
Mrs Bryant has testified that she heard
the conversation between the defendant
and Jackson in which the defendant
said that he wanted Jackson to say
that he. the defendant, did not say
anything about that money ana ne
would pay him well if he would not;
and that Mr.. Jackson told him NO
he should not tell any such lie. If he
had tO fell ANYTHING he would tell the