The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1905-05-20
Arguments in Mary Rogers
Petition For New Trial.
NO STATEMENT BY COURT
Attroney General Fits Occupied About
Three Hours Yesterday Afternoon in
Refutation Of Afidavits
Of Petitioner.

Montpelier, May 20. Mary Rogers
petition for a new trial ON the charge
Of numbering her husband, Marcus Rog-
ers, was placed with the supreme court
Of Vermont last evening with the last
argument of the day by John H. Senter,
one Of the attorneys for the woman.
The judges made no announcement when
they left the court room as to when
their decision would be made known.
Attorney General Fits stated this
morning that he does not expect de-
cision before several days. He, with
States Attorney Daley Of Bennington
county, left Montpelier this forenoon.
Attorney General Fits took nearly all
the time yesterday afternoon, his argu-
ment covering three hours. Mr. Fits
made no attempt at oratorical effect,
but contented himself with plain state
ments. The afiidayits of Attorney
Cakes, Z. w. Oakes, formerly superin-
tendent of the state prison and w. S.
Lowell, former deputy, to the effect that
Leon Perham told them that he lied on
the witness stand did not give the whole
Of the conversations Mr.. Fits said that
Perham's weak mind would not have
prompted him to say that without
coaching, questioning or urging Per-
ham did not state wherein he lied.
,The court has the right to under
stand from these afiidayits that Per-
ham on the eve Of the execution of the
woman who led him to participate in
this crime, with the excitement, the
nervous strain Of such an occasion,
brought before the officers in whose CON
troll and custody he was sentenced to
remain for the rest Of his natural life,
cross examined BY skillful attorney
acting in behalf OF the respondent, who
was attempting to wiring from him
some sentence or some word upon which
to hang the hope for reprieve, that
he in that situation and on such an
occasion said in response to leading
questions the substance OF what these
atlantis state
1t would have been impossible for a
fracture of the skull of the murdered
man to have been passed unnoticed at
the autopsy.
Dr. AicNayne OF Hoosicix Falls said
in affidavit that Mary Rogers visited
him on August 10, 1902, two days be-
fore the murder. sBut Mary Rogers
was not at Hoosiek Falls upon Sunday.
August 10, 1902" declared the attor-
all day" And he supported his con-
tention by evidence brought out at the
trial. McWayne should have been a
witness at the trial II Mary Rogers
visited him two days bt re the murder
was committed. The de- ise would not
have failed to note that.
In closing his argument Attorney Cen
eral Fits said
The court will note the full corrobora-
ton Of the testimony of Leon Perham.
First, there is the tell-tale note, ex-
hibit i. The petitioner wrote that note
herself beyond question. The admitted
handwritings of Marcus Rogers show
that it was not his work The admitted
handwTitings Of the petitioner show that
it was hers. The testimony of the
experts stands unimpached and uushalS-
en-. There is found in her trunk paper
exactly like that upon which the note
was written. Leon perham testified that
he saw her write it and although he
changed his testimony on cross -examina.
ttpA AttA hR0h ~ uHNn sitU sAtlttIIlCu
it, and was crossed again, the jury be-
lieved him when he said she wrote it.
They could not help it. And if Leon
Perham should now give his affidavit
and say that she did not write it, no
one would believe him and it could have
no weight whatever.
Leon Perham testified that she took
the insurance papers from her husbands
pocket Just before the body was rolled
into the river. Note the comoboration
of that testimony. The premium re-
ceipt had been mailed to Marcus several
days before by the insurance agent In
an envelope. On the evening of August
IL, when he was at the philputt house,
he exhibited these insurance papers and
that eneyolpe After the murder, these
papers were in the possession Of the
petitioner and She produced them Fri
day morning, the 18th, at the insurance
office. She said that she had not seen
her husband after half past six Tues
day night There is no other possible
explanation of all this than that She
had to do with the killing of Marcus
Rogers. What if Leon Perham should
now say that what he testified to as
VtHNA t"NAAS tllc thouidlice papers was
falsel Nobody could believe it, for
the circumstances and lmquestionable
Testimony show absolutely that what
be said must be true.
Consider, too, the respondents state
ment when she testified at the inquest
that the aunt had told Marcus not to
take too much Of the medicine. as ii
might Kill him and Marcus had said,
He hoped to God it would This was
false, as the testimony of Mrs. Philputt
shows Note also the fact that the
petitioner knew that he had left his
umbrella and the bottle Of medicine at
the Philputt house. How could she
have known 1t il she had not seen him
afterwardS The petitioner testified at
the inquest that She FIRST heard Of her
husbands death the morning the body