Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-05-25


The respondent and Perham UNDER
took the commission OF this crime In
the center Of a large village lighted
with electricity. within a few feet of
Inhabited houses, and Of electric lights.
and where an alarm would have prov.
en- disastrous.
Then. according TO Perham's testi-
mony. she entrusted TO him the bottle,
rope. handkerchief. etc, with which the
crime had been committed.
After Perham had thrown the body
into the river, she tied the victims
hat 70 a tree and pinned on the hat a
note purporting to a been signed
by tho dead man. The note was In the
handwriting of the prisoner. according
to the States evidence. and 1t is not
even n stimulation of the handwriting
of her husband.
II all this be true, clearly the prison.
or lacked the power Of reasoning, and
was unable to realize and understand
the necessary effect of her actions in
respect to eliminating herself and
pointing suspicion towards her.
Then, further, two. days after the
crime, when the body of her husband
is brought to the house where she is a
boarder, and she tried to have 1t taken
elsewhere, she decla res to one of the
selectmen that she understands that If
the victim poisoned himself the town
would have to bury him.
TO Richie and Remington. the pris-
oner declared that she did expect to
see her husband again that night,
August IL. 1902.
-
the same occasion. she declares to the
doctors hat her husband left her at
$50 p. m, saying that she should
never see his living face again." etc.
1t is evident she could not realize or
understand that these conflicting
statements were harmful to her, or.
more probably, she did not realize just
what she was then doing and saying.
She shows the insurance papers at the
autopsy and at three different times
asks the doctors II they have found
any poison.
1t Is much more probable that. If she
did those things, she was a victim Of
erotomania. Her conduct would be en-
tirely consistent with that OF a person
suffering from ruerperal insanity, a COM
mon manifestation of which is just such
acts as are described by those witnesses.
INSANITY IN THE FAMILY.
rhe evidence attached to the petition
abundantly shows that insanity is here
ditary in tho family of the petitioner. A
brother Of petitioners mother was insan
and confined in an asylum. He was
respondent and attempted suicide by cut.
ting his throat, and attempted the lives
of his children.
The mother Of the petitioner is a wom-
an Of n low order of intelligence and
mentally weak: and her father was a
victim Of alcoholism. He was OF a low.
d%cpraved nature. mentally weak and
morally degenerate.
The petitioner. as a child. manifested
many characteristics OF her father.
At and before the birth Of petitioner.
her father showed signs Of insanity. and
threatened the lives of mother and child.
He male an actual attempt to kill it a
few days after it's birth.
The father Of petitioner was an in
ebriate, and beat and ill-treated her
mother. He was Of uncomfortable tenn
per. and disposed to ill-treat and vio-
Ilertly injure others without reason. He
frequently threatened to kill the child
before her birth. and actually attempted
the life of the mother before the child's
birth, and that OF the child n few days
later. A later attempt to kill the pc
t~itioner was made by her father when
she was six months old. and for this
he was arrested.
In regard to the testimony OF DR.. Nc
Wayne. who said Mrs. Rogers had
puerperal insanity Mr.. Maloney said:
The competency. ability n standing in
the community OF this physician are
vouched for by DR.. George w. Lamb in
his affidavit. page 20, and Is not disputed.
Here is direct. positive and competent
evidence Of the fact relied upon as a de-
tense.
II must he taken as true, for there IL
nothing to oppose it and no good reason
to II it. 1t cannot be said that a Jury
would not render a different verdict thar
murder in the first degree IL the fact of
the insanity Of the prisoner were estab.
lished In evidence. This would be equiv.
alent to saying that the jury would dis
regard their first and highest duty. 1t
must, therefore, be concluded that with
this evidence, fortified by the evidence Of
the previous history of the prisoner and
of the history OF insanity in her family,
and of the fact that she inherited a dis
position to insanity, the verdict upon a
new trial would probably be different
from that under which the petitioner
now tands condemned to death. There
can be no claim made of any laches or
lack of diligence or the part of the petit.
toner. and such evidence as is here Of.
fered Is a good and SUFFICIENT ground for
a new trial. and has been so recognized
repeatedly by our courts.
TIL record shows errors as claimed by
counsel in the rulings and conduct OF the
trial, to some OF which exceptions were
saved. while to others no exception was
noted. But in capital cases. the saving of
exceptions liz not essential
Mr.. Moloney completed his argument at
noon.
ATTORNEY FITTs's ARGUMENT.
Without any attempt at oratory but
In a clear. convincing manner. Attorney
General Fits argued for another three
hours before the court this afternoon fror,
the standpoint of the brief for the State
prepared by himself and States After
new Daley of Bennington. why Mrs.
Rogers is not entitled to a new trial. lie
said the State has elected to try this
case on tho record and on the transcript
OF the evidence which Is treated as at
Tackled tn the petition In doing this,
however. the State does not admit the
facts that appear in the affidavit and
because 1t has not taken evidence To
| rOptrafict theso "a ffidn Wits a M sim tr.t