Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1907-03-26
/ then hs struck at me but didn't hit any

then no 1eruck % mo put -0!un' MT euy'
thing Warded OF the blow stepping
back, all the time. AZ he struck tho
second tune pulled out the revolver
and struck Pratt over the head with 1t.
Struck twice. Was exhausted and fell
| ON him. The revolver was exploded
three times but not ct him. Told Pratt
| II he would behave I'd let him up. He
said he would and he got up. Oliver
| had said I'd better let him up. We Of
fered to help him get the logs but he
said he could get them without help.
He picked up both our caps which had
fallen of and handed me mine. Oliver
had not laid hand on Mr.. Pratt from
flrst to last.
The cross-examination, though long
and exhaustive, ELECTED nothing to
seriously contradict Mr.. Robbins testi.
mOny.
Oliver A. Robbins testified that he
was 10-years-old. Didn't remember
what he did with the shovel. Began
cutting down tree when reached It. Did
| It for purpose of telling 1t into the road.
Father did not have the shovel at all.
We knew when we started out that Mr..
Pratt was not In the woods. Stood in
sled track, when chopping at the tree.
1t was nearly cut down when Mr.. Pratt
appeared. Pratt said to father, II he
didn't get out Of the way, he would
drive over him. Father stepped out into
the deep snow. Heard Pratt say "I'll
brain you'' as he got of his sled. Fs-
Their said keep back for I don't want
any trouble with you" His testimony
substantially corroborated that of his
father.
The cross-examination failed to shake
the boys testimony. He made an ex-
cellent witness.
Several other witnesses testified to
minor matters among whom was Dr..
Stewart of South Paris, who had ex-
amined the elder Robbins since the af-
fray. There were several physicians
called in the case and 1t was conjectured
that some would be introduced to con.
tradict DR.. Stewards statements as to the
action of the heart under certain condi-
tions and the effect of particular medi-
cines or remedies, but nothing of the
kind occurred. The doctor made fine
witness and impressed all with his i'm
Partially and medical knowledge and
skill.
DR.. Andrews of Auburn, who once re-
sided at West Sumner and had treated
Mr.. Irwin w. Robbins for heart trouble,
testified to continuing sending him GER
tain remedies since he moved away.
1t cropped out in evidence on cross
examination that some half dozen other
physicians had also treated Robbins. A
general laugh was raised by the question
whether DR.. Andrews remedies would
counteract the medicine he was taking
from the other physicians. The court
excluded the question.
DR.. b. F. Bradbury in rebuttal gave
testimony that in his judgment the
wounds on Mr.. Pratt's skull were not
caused by blows from tue revolver held
in the usual manner.
On cross-examination he admitted
that three wounds might be made with
one blow of the revolver so held but
could not have been so in this case.
Several other witnesses also testified
in rebuttal, and much of this evidence
was repetition of testimony given in
chief.
The pleas and charge of the court to
the jury took up the greater part of the
afternoon.
The charge was very impartial and
covered all the points in controversy.
No one could determine from 1t what
the courts opinion was.
The jury retired about six O'Clock and
after being out until twelve at night
sealed up its verdict.
At the coming In of the court on Satur-
day morning, the jury reported dis
agreement as to Irwin W. Robbins and a
verdict of acQuittal as to Oliver A. Rob-
bins. 1t is said that the jury stood 7 to
5 for verdict of an assault and battery,
but were unanimous that there was no
intent to kill and murder Mr.. Pratt, the
refusing to even agree on an as
sault, and stood from first to last for &C
quittal.
1t will be recalled that Judge Jones at
the preliminary hearing at Norway dis
charged Oliver A. Robbins. This verdict
sustains the good judgment of Judge
Jones, and is very gratifying to his
friends.
After the Robbins case had been given
to the jury, Edward Siddall of Rumford
was put on trial before the first jury. 1t
was on an indictment for single sale OF
intoxicating liquors to one Ed Wiggett.
The principal witness for the prosecu-
ton was one Joseph Cameron, who testi.
fed to going into the Siddall Block and
buying some whiskey of man there other
than the defendant. He did not know
who the man was. He was treated by
Wiggett after which he bought two
glasses of the fluid and treated Wiggett
and drank himself. The officers who
testified could not connect the defend
ant with running the beer shop. The
case was short one and but few
minutes were taken up in the arguments
by counsel and the charge of the court.
The jury after being out a short time re-
turned verdict of not guilty. Lawyer
Mccarthy managed the case for the de-