The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1913-11-29
Judges Discredit Affidavits
Given by Several Brat
tIebOrO Men
CASE WILL BE TAKEN
TO SUPREME COURT
Prisoner Meanwhile Will Remain in
Keene Jail-Cannot Be Said, Judges
Hold, that jury Convicted Wren on
Strength of Receipt.

John II. Wren s motion for new
trIal on the charge of numbering James
Stewart Hamilton in Hinsdale. \ II
iast February, which was based on the
| claim of newly discovered evidence
! was denied yesterday afternoon in 4
decision filed with Clerk Of Cour+
Holmes in keene, y. H.. by Judges
Robert q. Pike and Robert n. Chamber
lam, who presided at the trial. Wren :
counsel Will carry the case to the su-
Ipreme court. Meanwhile Wren, who i
under life sentence, viii remain in the
| Jail in Keene
In reaching this decision the Judges
dIseredit, apparently, the affidavits of
| several Brattleboro men, John ID. Hard
er, fireman; Thomas NJ o Connor. con.
! structlon train conductor; Bartholomew
| 7, Riley, brakeman; and Edward J.
| Madden, engineer. They gave afIidavits
\ that on the day Hamilton s BODY was
found the registered letter receipt
which later was discovered i'm the chim-
| ucy of the house in which Wren lived
/ In Brattleboro was found hv some of
1 them and seen by all Of them near the
scene Of the murder The defense
| claimed that this proved that the re-
celpt could not have been placed in the
chimney by Wren. The railroad men
| said the receipt was placed on a loco
motive to dry and was blown away.
/ This receipt played an important part
I in the trial, and Wren i counsel claimed
( that it was planted in the chimney
to divert suspicion from the real muir
derer and fastcn the guilt on Wren.
/ In taking up the matter, which was
argued before tho Judges some weeks
ago. they state that it cannot be told
/ that the Jury convicted Wren ON the
strength Of the finding Of the receipt
! in his chimney. The jury may have
| fclt satisfied. says the finding, that the
/ blood on Wren : clothing and the bank
bills in his pocket came from the per
son of Hamilton when he was murdered,
and that it was not necessary for them
/ to find that Wren brought the receipt
I from Hamilton in order to find the re-
/ spondent guilty.
/ Continuing, the judges state that it
was urged mt the hearing that the
receipt was planted bv the murderer TO
/ throw suspicion on Wren, or by some
other person with the view to getting
the reward offered. They could not
! find as "urged and are of the opin-
/ ion that no one could have taken the
Irccemipt from the place it was said to
/ have been lost by the railroad men to
the Wren tenement and planted it
/ without being detected. Also. if the
| finders believed they had evidence the
4 judges are OF the opinion they would
have brought the finding and losing to
the attention of the authorities. 1t is
hardly ereditable. the opinion states,
that if the finding left no particular
4 impression on the finders they remem-
/ ber the contents of the receipt so def
nitely.
! In conclusion the decision is summed
! UP as follows: upon considering the
at1idavits introduced in support Of this
motion in connection with the evidence
| introduced at the trial, and also the
arguments Of counsel it does not ap-
pear to the court probable that inius-
tice has been done bv the verdict, or
that another trial, with the alleged
newly discovered evidence. a different
verdict would be returned. Motion de-
MED