The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1913-07-22

AETER having had the case of the state
against George D. Higgins reviewed by
the highest courts In this state and the
verdict rendered In this county sustained
In all instances, further efforts are to be
made to secure the freedom of the man
and the case will be presented either to
the United States Supreme Court or to
the New Jersey Court of Pardons. Hug
gins was convicted OF wrong-doing with a
girl fourteen years of age. The evidence,
mainly that of the girl, who had been tax
en- from state institution by Higgins,
was plainly against the defendant. The
arrest of the defendant was at the instance
of @. V. Williams, superintendent of the
home from which the girl was taken. Re-
Gently the girl made an affidavit that Hug
gins was not the offender but the crime
with which she charged him was com
mitted before she entered his household.
A Trenton paper comes out with the start
ling story that Williams knew all of this
when he made complaint against Higgins.
The paper says:
''The most startling fact of all is that
the exact truth was known to @. V. VIII
liams, superintendent of the Trenton
Home, when, as guardian Of the child, he
caused the arrest of Higgins. Williams
was witness at the trial of the aged
preacher. but he omitted to tell of the
confession the girl had made to him.
Since the conviction Williams has aided
Higgins attorneys in the fight to free
him, and now that the fight has been lost
he is overcome with grief
When you were On the stand why did
you not tell the jury of the confession
this girl had made to your" Williams was
asked.
81 wanted to- l wanted to tell them
that her statements were not always to be
believed. But the rules of evidence In
this state are such that / was not permit
ted. l was only permitted to answer ques-
tons put to me.
had been cruel and had mIstreated the
child, and thought he might be convict.
ed of that and fined, but never dreamed
the jury would consider the more serious
charge In the Indictment.
If this publication is correct 1t shows
almost as much depravity on the part of
Williams as 1t does on the part of the girl
We can hardly believe that he said what
he Is credited to have told. The rules of
evidence did not prevent this man from
telling the grand jury what he might
have been kept from revealing to the jury
below, nor was there anything In the wide
world to prevent him talking with the
Prosecutor of the Pleas and everybody
knows that If the latter had been acquaint-
ed with anything anywhere approaching
the present situstion he would have Drop
ped the entire matter. Then again VIII
liams Is reported to have said that he knew
Higgins had been cruel and had mistreat-
ed the child and never thought the jury
would convict him of any more serious
crime, He probably knew at the time
was indicted for the more serious
charge, but he let the trial on that point
proceed. The present aspect of the case
has very ''fshy" look. II Williams
statements have been correctly reported 1t
would appear to be the duty of the Prose
cutor of the Pleas to have him before the
court to reconcile his action when the case
was tried. A man who now confesses that
he knew the statements of the child "were
not always to be believed, and with that
knowledge allowed an aged man, preach.
sr at that, to suffer the ignominy of tria |
and conviction on such a charge as was
put against him. deserves to be punished
n some way. AS remarked before 1t is
hard to realize that the agent of the society
las made the statements attributed to him