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

been in Hoosick Falls on August 10. DR..
! McWavne would have been u witness nj
her trial.
| Tho testimony of William Rogers shows
| that IIooslck Falls and the town of
| tfoosick are connected with the village
! OF Bennington by trolley and by steam,
cars: that access between the two is easy
| and frequent. Tho court will take geo
| graphical notice of the location of these
places With Hoosick Falls twelve miles
| from Bennington, with trolley cars rum
| ming directly between the two the con-
ncction ~ steam cars easy il is fair
| for us to inquire what the counsel for
| the respondent were doing that they did
not have those various witnesses to tes-
tify at the trial
1t is almost Ike n trail at Montpclit r
leaving on, important Witnesses at Barre
| or like II trial at Burlington aud emitting
to call important witnesses from Essex
junction. Tho court must have knowl-
edge and must take judicial notice that
a trial of this nature d: bennington
could not fail to excite gr,at oopular
interest at IIoosicl Falls, the girihood
home of Mary Rogers and tho home of
her mother. the place where Marcus
Rogers had lived most Of his life and
from whence he went to Bennington on
that fatef,il afternoon of August IL. The
first place in the world for Mary RoEcrs's
counsel to have gone. for her 10 have
sent them. was tc Ifousick Falls. The
first person almost aside from the moth
or, concerning whom we vii, notc) 70
whom thcy should have gone was her
physician Or. McWayne. ifcr counsel
say tncv krCw she was pregnant Tho
,i., Il I,,.
tie House of Correction awaiting trial.
MRS. ROGERS HAD SOME MIND.
The record shows that no aprlication
VAS made 20 the court by her counse,
to have witnesses summoned in her he.
half THO court will take notice that tho
attendance of witnesses from lIoosick
Falls upon court at Bennington could
have Leon easily secured. The rcspor-
dent had mind enough 10 toll tho health
officer Stillson tsec Vol. II. L. $40 ct seu)
concerning the parcntagc birth and
birthplace o. her husband. she had mind
enough to prompt her counsel at the
nessos. as the record shows she must
this crime and to plan to conceal Ii, to
writing of her husband. tn try to dispose
OF the various evidences of what she had
done. to mako up q story in defense and
to write to Morris Enapp when she WINS
IN Jail that "Pcrham has let it all out"
She know enough to tell about her visit |
tc DR.. McWayne on Sunday. Angus. 10. !
If She bad been there. and if she had
told her counsel that. they knew enough |
to get McWayne as a witness in her be- |
half
ID. A. GUILTINAN PETITIONERS
COUNSEL.
Guilt man testifics that lie was assigned
To defend the petitioner at the June term. |
lfU', or Bennington county court the |
same term she WIS indicted. He had six
according to his statement, in |
which to prepare the case for trial
We have before noted the location of
lloosick Falls, where practically all the !
petitioners witnesses reside he court |
VIII note the testimony of William II |
Rogers OF the necessity of Hoosick |
Fails to Bennington by trolley and steam |
cars. 1t needs no suggestion TO this court |
mat Gultnan's duty during that six |
months was to thoroughly prepare that |
Ease for trial. He had assumed that duty |
md was to he paid for it by the State. If |
he made any investigation at Bennington |
concerning hor. il must have soon led |
him back TO lIoosick Falls He must have |
found that Marcus Rogers came from |
Ioosck Falls the day of the murder and |
iad been working for his brother there |
1t Iloosick for some time. 1t is strange
indeed II he did not have communication !
with petitioners mother who lived at
ioosick
If there had been during all that SIX
months the slightest indication Of insnn-
ty on the part of Mary Rogers il must
naturally have come to Gultinan's atton-
ion and would of course have started
lini upon investigation along that line 1t
must he that he knew that she had had
child born the December previous His |
associate Archibald admits in his an.
lavit that he knew il. This witness does
not state that he did not know the moth
n of the petitioner and did not talk with
Ter and did not go to IIoosick Falls lie |
lays that hc had not heard that Mary
Rogers had over been insane. That of
curse is truc for nobody else has heard
# it. And he says that he had not heard
hat either of her parents had eyer
'ccn insane. There is no evidence here
hat they were. lie says that he had
Tot heard that there had ever been u
'ase of insanity among any of her rol-
itivcs If tho fact of her unclcs tom
norary insanity in 1886 had over come
o anybody's mind rs affecting the nc-
ions of Mary Rogers and hcr rcspon-
'ibility for this crime, Gultinan would
nave heard of it, would he not? If
Nary had over exhibited any tendency
,r traits such rs her uncle showed at
he time of his temporary insanity,
he mother would have known 1T, and
We cannot doubt it would have been
communicated to Guiltinan. The en-
ire absence of any thought of such
hing as insanity during all tho six
months that Guiltinan had the case in
preparation shows that this claim of
icfense is an afterthought, not ono that
naturally came to the minds of those
who had best reason to know about it
md expect it when the case was being
prepared for trial.
f. G. ARCIiIBALD
Archibald states that he did not
inow nor was it limited at the trial by
any one concerning insanity in tho
'amly. Had it occurred to Archibald,
istute lawyer that he is, that such Il
hing was DOssible as that tho matt