The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1911-10-28
TURLEY SMOKED CIGAR
AFTER HEARING RESULT
He Has Been Tried During the
Past Two Weeks on the
Charge Of Numbering John
MCAuley, Another Barre Quar-
lyman, on July II, Last.

"Guilty Of murder in the second de.
gree" was the verdict pronounced in
Washington county court to-day in the
case OF John Turley, Webstervilla
lquarryman, who has been tried during
the past two weeks on the charge Of
numbering John McAuley, another quar-.
ryman, at Webstery;iie on the night Of
July II. last. The case had been given
into the hands Of the jury at 4;4O last
evening, following Judge Taylor's charge;
aud the verdict was announced at the
opening Of court this morning at
o'clock.
At that hour, Turley was brought into
court. appearing somewhat careworn. as
/ if after sleepless night; but he dis
played few signs Of nervousness, even
when ordered by Deputy Clerk Moody 10
stand when the verdict was given The
4 jury were then asked ii they had arrived
/ at verdict, and B, II. Daniels Of Wood
bury the foreman, asserted a verdict
had been reached that the respondent
i was guilty Of murder in the second de-
gree Even then. with the likelihood of
the remainder of his life being spent
behind The bars staring him in the face,
the prisoner did not break down.
When Foreman Daniels had returned
the verdict Attorney Hoar, one Of the
defending attorneys, asked for a poll of
the jury which was granted, after which
each man rs his name was called. droned
out the same fateful words, "Guilty of
murder in the second degree" Attorney
Sentcr the other defending attorney,
was in court, as was States Attorney
Carver; but Attorney General Sargent
was not present.
Following the return of the verdict,
Judge Taylor excused the jury. While
Judge Taylor and the assistant Judges
retired 70 discuss the case. Turley sat
in the prisoners chair in the courtroom
and seemed to take enjoyment ont OF
the cigar which was furnished him.
When asked concerning the case Of
State vs.. Primavera. murder, States At
torney Carver stated that he had nott-
ing to say at present as to the matter
Of the trial During the trial Of Tlfley
Primavera WAS PIT on the stand as a
witness for the prosecution.
The Crime.
The killing Of McAuley followed 4
night of drinking at Websteryille, in
which both McAulev and Turley par
ticipated. the evidence going to show
that the two men were. late in the even
ing, members OF party at the house Of
one Catherine Staples in Graniteviile
when. rs the states evidence had II.
McAuley and 1iirley entered into dis
pute over a trivial matter. followed bv
tho calling OF names and muttcred
threat hv one member of the party
identified by some as Turley, that he
would "Gy him The next morning.
July 10, McAuley's bloody corpse was
found beside the road not far from the
Staples house. and along the path lead
ng from us road back toward the
house were fonnd many TRACES Of blood
Turlev eas arrested that night, the 18th,
and at the same time Alphonse Prima
vera, another ouarryman, was taken into
custody: and. later. was indicted on the
charge Of killing McAulev just as nlr-
ley was. Turley Is now Al years of age.
Judge Taylor's Charge.
Judge Taylor began his charge to the
Jury yesterday afternoon at three
O'Clock. He told them that this was
the prosecution of the respondent, John
Turlev, by indictment of the grand jury
for this county Of the crime Of murder.
and that the Indictment charged that
the respondent on the 18th day of last
July did kill and murder John McAuley
and to this indictment the respondent had
pleaded not guilty. He then told them
the this Kind Of trial was different
than the, civil cases they had had to
consider. that the measure of proof was
different.
In civil cases parties establish their
rights by fair balance of proof but in
criminal prosecutions the state is re-
quired to make out the respondents
guilt to a greater degree Of certainty,
that is, the state had to make out the
respondents guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. He told the jury that they
were TO take into consideration all the
circumstances which had been produced
in evidence and the guilt of the re-
spondent must be established by the
evidence.
The fact that the respondent had been