Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1905-06-02
ANOTHER REPRIEVE
Mrs. Rogers Will Not Be Execut.
ed at Windsor Today

Her Case to 90 to United States Supreme
court-vermont Supreme Court Denied
New Trial.
Mrs. Mary NJ, Rogers, convicted OF the
murder Of her husband. Marcus Rogers
OF Bennington, was denied new trial at
Montpelier in a decision handed down
Saturday afternoon by the Vermont SUI
preme court. Two of the justices dis
scented. Counsel for Mrs. Rogers, after
appealing in vain for an opportunity to
present alleged newly discovered evidence
before the court, and to secure contin-
uance of six weeks, announced their in
tenuon of carrying the cast to the United
States supreme court.
Having secured a reprieve of her SEN
tence from February last until June 2. on
the ground that they had discovered new
evidence, her lawyers presented this evil
dence with a petition for a new trial to
two justices of the supreme court who
decided that the matter should be given
hearing before the full bench. Justice
John Watson in announcing the decision
of the court Saturday declared that the
evidence had been found insufficient to
form grounds for a new trial: that sew
eral Of the affidavits presented were ir-
relevant; that evidence tending to show
that Rogers met death otherwise than was
shown in the trial OF his wife was not
convincing, and, finally, that the woman
was of a perfectly sound mind at the time
of the crime. Accordingly the petition
was denied.
In his decision, Judge Watson said that
the affidavit OF Leon Perham, the accom-
plice of Mrs Rogers, who Is now serving
life sentence in state prison for the
crime, which was made to counsel for the
woman and the prison officials, stated
Perham had lied on the stand, but did
not state in what particular he had fall
sified. The afildavits of prison officials
regarding Perham and Mrs. Rogers the
court considered irrelevant Regarding
the contention of Mrs. Rogers's counsel,
that a fracture of the skull had been dis
covered by the man who prepared Rog-
erss body for burial, and that this would
indicate that the man had been muir
dered by blow instead of by chloroform
which was shown by the evidence in Mrs
Rogefs's trial to have been the cause of
death, Justice Watson said that 1t seemed
incredible that the physicians who per-
formed the autopsy should not have re-
ported such a wound. He said nothing
had been brought forward to prove that
this fracture was not made by the phys
icians themselves In the course of their
examination, as they had maintained.
The last portion Of the courts opinion
took up the theory advanced by Mrs
ROGERS counSel tnat the woman was in
sane at the time of the murder. The court
said: in spite of the evidence introduced
and the affidavits produced, the court has
no reason to doubt but that the petitioner
at the time of the homicide was of the
mental ability to distinguish between
right and wrong, and to comprehend the
nature of the crime which she was to COM
init, and that she had sufficient will-power
to enable her to refuse to commit it," The
dissenting opinion, which was read by
Judge Seneca Hazelton and concurred in
by Judge George M. Powers expressed the
belief that new trial should be granted
on the ground of insanity. The opinion
traced the woman's family history to a.
considerable extent, and expressed the be-
lief that the womans homicidal tendency
was the result of heredity.
Mrs Rogers was convicted of the muir
der of her husband in August, 1902. at
Bennington, with Leon Perham as her
accomplish. Luring Rogers to the banks
OF the Walloomsac river, on the pretense.
that his wife, with whom he had had
trouble, wished to make a reconciliation.
they induced him, in a spirit of what he
supposed was fun, to allow himself TO be
bound with rope to test his strength
Mrs. Rogers then held a chloroformed