Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-06-01
Five Judges of the Supreme Court
Deny the Petition in Behalf
Of Mary Rogers.
TWO JUDGES DISSENT.
Haselton and Powers Think There IL
Some Evidencc OF Neutrality-suspicious..
ity Opinion Declares That the
Murder Of Marcus Rogers
Was Deliberately Plan.
ned and Committed.

Montpelier, May 2s--saturday was no
holiday for the Judges of the supreme
court and the afternoon was big with
events in connection with the Mary
Rogers case. A majority opinion of the
court, which was read by Judge Watson
who prepared it. denied Mrs Rogorss
petition for a new trial This opinion.
which contained about 200 words
and covered about II typewriter
! pages. was prepared with great care and
covered fully every phase of the ground
/ in the petition for Il new trial. 1t took
isJudge Watson an hour to read it, and he
was given the closest attention by the
court, attorneys and spectators.
! After giving Il history of the case the
poinion refers to the ahdavits of william
s. Lowell, T. w. Cakes and Edward B.
Flynn who were together at the States
prison at Windsor on 31st day Of January
last. 1t says; 80 far as these afiidavts
show all Leon then said to the afiiant was
that he had lied when he testified at the
trial. In what respect he lied he did not
state. 1t may have been regarding some
OF the particular things concerning which
he gave contradictory statements in his
cross examination. 1t appearing by the
transcript of the evidence given at the
tllal tnat ne ulu so COntraulct nlInSeI, tne
court is not warranted in saying from
these aflidavts that his statement to the
atlantis had reference to anything else
The matter of these contradictions was
before the jury for consideration in de-
terminng how much weight they would
give his testimony.
1t is argued by the petitioners counsel
that his testimony at the trial that he
!, CT, 70 aft If
much force because of his testimony at
the trial that he had been promised immu-
nifty, because of which he gave his testi-
mony But this was also matter for the
Jury to take into consideration. and
that it might not he overlooked
in the charge to the jury the
attention was particularly called thereto
and they were instructed that while it
was not claimed on the part of the re-
spondcnt that any one in the authority
of the State had held out any induccment
10 Leon to testify, and that the state
was not responsible for what any one
else had done. yet, if his mind was affect
ed by what some one else had told him
in that regard they should consider it
and say whether that fact in any way
colored the testimony which he had given
In court. In addition to this the testi-
fnony given by him at the trial in very
many of its material respects was so
corroboratcd by other witnesses and cir
| cnmstances as to render it certain beyond
| 81 reasonable doubt that he had told sub
| stantially tho truth. Under such cir
cumstances these three afIidavits have
r no material force as a basis for new
trial.
The evidence on the trial tended to
show that the cause of the death Of Mar
Gus Rogers was asphyXiation or suffcca-
4 ton caused by the shutting IF the CLOTHS
4 upon the holding of handkerchicfs
! saturated with chloroform to his nose.
THE FRACTURE OF THE SKULL.
In regard to the affidavit of Louis u
Haussler, the undertaken. who said h
found compound. multiple depressed
fracture in Rogers skull the judge says:
THE evidence at the trial shows that
the autopsy ON the body of Marcus ROg
ers was performed by DIR. T.. Il. Daley anC
Or. II. j. Potter of Bennington on the day