Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1905-05-19
AGAINST PLEA OF INSANITY.
Rogers, Whose Petition for New Trial
VIII BE Heard Today.

Rogers, Whose Petition for New Trial
VIII BE Heard Today.
Attorney General Clarke c. Fits of
Brattleboro and States Attorney William
r Daley of Bennington went to Mont
pelier last night to appear before the
supreme court at a hearing on the peti-
ton of Mary Rogers for a new trial on
the charge of numbering her husband
Marcus Rogers, in Bennington Aug, 49,
1902. The hearing began at 8 o'clock this
morning, r. w. Moloney of Rutland, Law
yer Mccarthy of Hooslck Falls, n. Y,
and f. c. Archibald of Manchester ap-
pearing for the petitioner. The petition
was based on dispositions taken in behalf
of the petitioner several weeks ago
the substance of which was published at
that time. The attorneys for the state
took UP today the affidavits of the petit
toner and answered them one by one
One of the most important affidavits
for the petitioner was that of Louis
Haussler, the undertaken who prepared
Rogers's body for burial He testified
that he discovered a compound multiple
fracture of the skull, which the attorneys
for Mrs. Rogers used in connection with
Leon Perham's confession since the trial,
that he killed Rogers by a blow on the
head as one reason why Mrs. Rogers
should be granted a new trial. The states
brief shows that before the undertaken
an autopsy, removing the brain. and that
there must have been fracture of the
skull when they were through with it.
All that appeared at the trial and is given
in the record.
Another reason advanced by Mrs
Rogers's counsel in support of a new trial
was the evidence of DIR. McWayne of
Hoosick Falls, who stated that on Aug
10, two days before the murder, Mrs
Rogers visited him and showed signs of
puerperal insanity. Dr. McWayne fixed
the date positively as Aug. 10, but the
record of the trial shows absolutely
that Mary Rogers was in Bennington
physician for Mrs. Rogers several years
before 1902, but he failed to show the
slightest indication of insanity on her
part before Aug. 10.
James c. Reilly, an insurance agent in
Bennington, stated in his affidavit that
he asked Mrs. Rogers to call at his Office
with her husbands insurance policy, and
that she did not come until so asked The
states brief holds that this is not
material. The fact remains that the
petitioner was the beneficiary in that
policy and that she talked with Levi and
Leon Perham about killing her husband
to get the insurance.
AS to DR.. e. G. Hall, the states brief
says: HE is the physician at Rutland
who attended the petitioner during her
Imprisonment in the house of correction
at the time she was awaiting trial, and
who attended her at the time her child
was born, Dec. 16, 1902 If on the eve
of childbirth the petitioner had shown
evidences of insanity this witness would
have known it. If she had had puerperal
insanity DIR. Hall would be the best wit
ness to the fact. The failure of the petit
toner to get from him any testimony of
that import argues conclusively that she
cyXru ntO of in nit y
during the time DIR. Hall attended her"
The entire absence of any thought of
such thing as insanity during all the
six months that Mrs Rogerss attorney,
D. A. Guiltinan, had the case in prepara-
ton was argued by the state as showing
that the claim of insanity was an after
thought not one that naturally came to
the minds of those who had best reason
to know about it when the case was be-
ing prepared for trial.