Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1908-03-31
GUILTY OF MANsLAUdnTER.
The Verdict In the Case of Wallace
q. Everett.

The Verdict In the Case of Wallac
q. Everett.
SENTENCE OF TWELVE YEARS L
PRISON Is IMPOSED BY JUDO
wHITEHoUsE.
The arguments in the case of State VS.
Wallace G. Everett, in which the re
spondent was charged with the murde
! of Edgar l.. Radcliffe on the 18th of las
June, were made in the Supreme Judi
cial Court last Monday. The forenoon
session was occupied by the argument o
Hon. John P. Swasey for the defence
Needless to say, Mr.. Swasey's argumen
was brilliant and eloquent. In genera
his argument was that no crime ha(
been shown; that Everett's story of The
events of that night was true, and thai
he had acted strictly according to his in
structions, and the death of Radcliffe
who was a trespasser on the grounds
was due entirely TO accident.
Hon. W. c. Philbrook made the argu
ment in behalf of the state at the after
noon session. He took the ground that
the evidence had shown the falsity Of
Everett's story, and pointed unquestion
ably to the fact that an atrocious murder
had been committed, for the commission
of which Everett had the exclusive op.
portunity.
In the course of his argument Mr.
Philbrook alleged that even if Everett's
story were strictly true-which the state
did not for a moment admit-Everett
would be guilty of manslaughter by his
testimony, for fastening Radcliffe into a
dangerous place, where there was large
quantity of high explosive.
Judge Whitehouse occupied some
thing more than an hour with his charge,
giving, in his clear and pleasing style of
address, the law applying to the case,
and reviewing the main features of the
evidence. In regard to the states posi-
ton as to manslaughter, he instructed
the jury in substance that if Radcliffe
was a marauder there Everett had the
powers of an officer to detain him, but
that if in the exercise of that power he
confined him in a place dangerous to
life, and Radcliffe thereby suffered death,
Everett would be guilty of manslaughter
under the law of criminal negligence.
At $40 Monday afternoon the case was
given to the jury, and they retired to
their room. Some later supper was
brought to their room for them, and
early in the evening Judge Whitehouse
and the court officers assembled at the
court house in readiness to receive a
verdict if one should come. There was
also a sprinkling of spectators in the
rear of the court room and the gallery.
Just before 8 o'clock there was rap
at the door of the jury room, and it was
announced that the jury was ready to
report. The prisoner was brought up,
and the jury, Intercepted by the clerk,
answered, equity of manslaughter."
Everett heard the announcement without
change of countenance, and if he felt any
emotion did not manifest it.
1t is understood that on the first ballot
the jury stood seven for verdict of
murder, two for manslaughter, and three
for acquittal.
SENTENCE IMPOSED.
When court opened Tuesday morning
Everett was brought in, and Mr.. Phil
brook addressing the court said that
while the state did not wish to appear in
undue haste, as he had to leave i'm
mediately he would move for sentence
at that time. He addressed the court
briefly regarding the matter, saying that
in view of the evidence in the case, and
the fact that the verdict was probably
compromise, the state felt that a severe
penalty should be imposed, we'll toward
the limit of twenty years.
Mr.. Swasey replied briefly in behalf of
his client, urging that justice required a
sentence in proportion to the verdict,
which under the instructions of the court
was for manslsughter on the grounds of
culpable negligence, for which no heavy
sentence should be imposed.
Judge Whitehouse in opening his brief
remarks in imposing sentence, first COM
mented upon an intimation made by the
counsel for defence as to fabricated
evidence, and stated that in his forty
years of practice, twenty of them direct
~ concerned with the application of the
criminal law, he had never known an
instance where evidence was fabricated
by the state to convict an accused man.
He then said in part:
II can not KNOW 10 WHAT eXtcut tuo
verdict was in the nature of COM
promise. While do not intend to ex-
press any opinion upon the main issue,
| will say that if the jury in the exercise
of its duty had seen fit to bring in YER
dict of guilty on the full charge, the full
bench would never have felt required to
order new trial. There are mysteries
in the case which have not been salts
factorily explained. If they should ever
be, feel sure that the states attorneys
will cheerfully join with me in an appeal
to the pardoning power to right any in
Justice which has been done. But l do
not feel that | can ignore the evidence
which has been presented in this ease. !"
He then made memorandum on the
back of the indictment, and passed it to
Clerk Whitman, who pronounced the
sentence of twelve years in state prison.
Everett took the sentence with apparent
calmness, and Immediately followed
Jailer Farrar, and within few seconds
after the words had been spoken was
gone from the room.