Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-07-12
Arguments In Rev. Mr..
Sandford's Case.
Convicted OF Causing Death Of
Young Bartlett.
Counsel for Holy Ghost and Us Leader
File Expeditions, Asking for New
TriaI-Decision Will No. Be An
nounced for Some Time,

Portland. Me-, June 1.-THE case of
ford for manslaughter was argued be-
fore the law court, today, by county at
torney of Angroscoggin. William b.
Shelton for the State and by II. w.
Cakes for the defendant. Rev. Frank
w. Sanford is the head of the Holy
Ghost and Us Society with headquar-
tiers ut Shiloh, Durham. He was found
guilty by a jury in FranNlin county Of
manslauGhter on account of the death
of Leander Bartlett, n 14-year-Old boy,
who, with his mother, was a member
of the society. Young Bartlett diel OF
diphtheria ut Shiloh, Jan. 25, 1908. He
did not receive medical attendance ard
at the trial the State relied on two
grounds to prove its charge of man.
Slaughter: namely the failure to pro-
vide proper medical attendance and the
deprivation Of food on account of re-
ligious fasts.
AT the trial it was brought out that
Sanford had said that Bartlett was
iNpVi'uS an tii.tt .lt, So.iIltlIOTu, Nottltt
hot care if he saw the boys dead body
lyin:: before him. Other testimony was
introduced to show Sandfords control
over the members of the society. The
exceptions on which a motion for n
new trial We're based are many but
come under three general heads. Th.
question of the admissability of the tes-
timony of Nellie Smith, who was not
allowed to testify as to whether or not
she had heard Mr.. Sanford pray for
the recovery of Bartlett.
The admissability of the testimony
Of Rev. w. II. Hartman, who related
incidents in the life at Shiloh to prove
that Sanford absolutely controlled the
members Of the society even to their
married relations.
The refusal of the presiding justice
to instruct the jury, that If the sick
We're under the especial care of some
competent person other than the de-
| PENDANT with ample means to furnish
care and food that the respondent
would not be responsible for the death
The presiding justice save this instrur-
| ton but qualified it Ey instructine the
| jury that if care AMI food were with
| held because of the rules of the So
ciety that the defendant would not bc
excused OF responsibility.
| Mr.. Cakes for the defence argued
| that Nellie Smith should have been al
| lowed to testify in regard to hearing
Mr.. Sanford pray for the recovery Of
' the Bartlett boy: that Harriman's
I, testimony in regard to his personal re-
| lations and the relations of the society
| 10 Sanford should not have been adj
| mitted on account of irrelevancy, and
| that the presiding justice should have
| instructed as requested.
Mr.. Shelton argued that Harriman's
testimony was properly admitted rs
! showing extent of control by Sanford
| in as much as the extent of this con-
| troll would show SandfOrd's influence
| over attendants and would prevent
them from giving food against his or
derS. Hartman had testified that there
was no appeal from n decision given
Nv Sanford and cited instances Of
Sandford's arranging marriages, PIE
venting marriages and the separation
of families.
The case occupied the attention OF
the court all the morning and the argyll
ments We're entirely on points OF law.
A decision will not be rendered for
some weeks.