Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-06-08
For Joe Bill, Rumford
Wife Murderer.
Law Court Dismisses Appeal
OyeTruIes Exceptions.
Harmless Error Should Not Be Per.
mitted to 0yerturn verdiciw

The supreme judicial court mas de-
MED the motion for new trial in the
oxford county murder case of State
Us. Joe ELL. The respondent was "a
Rumford Falls fruit peddler, who muir
dered his wife, May II, 1911. The case
came before the law court on appeal
ard exceptions, IS well az Il motion
for a new trial. The appeal is dis
missed, the exceptions overruled and
Judgment found for The state in the
6rescript, drawn by Associate Justice
Leslie c. Cornish, which was handed
down. Friday, from the law court. The
rescript is as follows:
State VS.. Isnazio Aibanes, alias Joe
Bill, rescript, Cornish, j.
AT the October term 1911, oftthc SUI
preme Judicial court for the county of
oxford, the respondent was found
guilty of the murder of his wife, Ro-
sina Albanes on May II, 1911. He
thereupon filed a motion for new trial
which was denied by the presiding
justice and an appeal from this decis
ion was taken To this court under r.
S. Oh. 1S5, See. p. Various exceptions
were also reserved.
Held on the Appeal
l. That the single question before
this court on this branch of the case
is whether in view of all the testimo-
ny 1.-The jury We're warranted in be-
lieving beyond reasonable doubt and
therefore in finding, that The defend
ant was guilty Of the crime charged
against him" State VS.. Lambert, 81
Maine. 81.
g That careful study of the oc-
currences which We're either uncon-
troverted or which from the evidence
the jury were warranted in believing
took place. not onls Justified hut de-
manded the verdict rendered. There
was ample evidence both OF implied
and of express malice.
,. That it is the opinion of the
court that the jury were warranted in
finding that a husband who armed
with q revolver, fired three shots at
his defenceless wife with no more pro-
vocation than is here revealed and es-
peciaily after twice making threats to
kill her. if the divorce case which he
had brought against her were contin-
ued, Who turned and left her lying up
pouring from her wounds without at
tempting to ascertain whether size
were living or dead, or to call a ply
stefan to her assistance. although she
lived three hours and regained con-
seriousness before her DEATH, but
sought his own safety in delivering
himself up to the officers. who never
afterwards manifested the slightest
remorse or even regret at his deed but
rather continued to cherish his hatred
towards her, for though Il man of
some property, when asked by the
undertaken on the next day after the
homicide when he wanted her buried,
answered tonight" and when asked
in what price casket told the under
taker to bury her in a pine box if he
could not get a, casket for so, is. ac-
cording to the laws of Maine, guilty
Of murder and nothing less.
Exceptions.
l. That the evidence of John Zacolli
as to certain conversation he had with
the deceased on the day before the
shooting, offered to shc%- what she
had to say about Joe Bill's manner"
was properly excluded 1t was merely
hearsay.
.. That the ruling of the court that
evidence charging the deceased with
adultery must he confined to acts oc-
curing within one, two. three or four
days prior to the homicide" was at the
most harmless error. Such facts would
not he admissible unless they were
brought to the knowledge of the re-
spcndent. and no evidence was offered
to that effect. Moreover the record
shows that\ the respondent had been
informed of his wife's alleged relations
with one Nicola Balistini and had
brought libel for divorce against her
on the ground of adultery. Harmless
error. il such there was, should not be
permitted to overturn a just verdict.
8. That. two of the leading citizens
of Rumford having testified to the
good reputation of the respondent in
that community in which he had lived
for the preceding 10 years. the exclu-
sion of testimony of two witnesses to
the same effect from Lewiston where
he had lived for 10 years prior to com
ing to Rumford was not reversible
error This inquiry, under ordinary
circumstances, is confined to the place
of residence at the time of trial, pro
Vided the residence there has been OF
sufficient length for a reputation to
have been acquired
Moreover the question of relevancy
or irrelevancy or the ground of re-
in time is d preliminary
question to he determined by the pre-
siding Justice in his discretion and his
ruling will not be disturbed unless the
has been grossly abused.
Further. in this case. the evidence
offered was merely cumulative, as this
point was not challenged by the State.
and the court has the power to impose
a reasonable limitation upon the num-
Der of witnesses whe shall be permit-
ted to testify ON the issue OF charac-
ter
L. That the evidence of the under
taker as to the declarations of the re-
spondent made ON the next day after
the homicide. in regard to the inter-
ment of his wife was admissible as
bearing upon the question of express
malice. its weight, being for the jury
Apneal dismissed Motion for new