The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1913-12-27

JIG ucCtSIOH Ol Inc Judges denying Nun
a new trial on the charge OF murder /
was announced in this paper this week.
The full text of the appeal is gwen I
herewith. Wren, who formerly lived /
in tenement i'll Andrew kirkwood 5 /
house on Birge street, while employed |
by the Holbrook. Cabot < Rollins cor
poration in the construction of the rail +
road from South Vernon to this town
by way of Hinsdale, was convicted OF
the murder of james Stewart Hamilton
at q trial in keene. \. H., a few weeks
ago, and he has begun a life sentence
IN the state prison ut Concord.
Counsel for Wren claimed that his
conviction was due largely to a post
Office receipt belonging 10 Hamilton
found in the chimney OF the kirkwood
house after Wren had left town follow
ing the murder They claimed that
the receipt was "plantcd there by
some one TO divert suspicion, and they
introduced ai1idavits to show that sew
eral railroad men found the receipt
frozen in the ice beside Hamilton :
body in IIinsdale after Wren had start
ed for his wife home in Chester,
Nova Scotia, near Halifax, y. s.
The respondent asked for a new trial
-
dcncr, which was the statements Of the
railroad men relative to the receipts.
but the Judges denied the motion,
hence the appeal, which reads a. fol
lows:
Now comes the respondent, bv lis
counsel Benton 4 Piykurd AMI Joseph
Madden. and appeals from the denial
OF his motion for u new trial TIC
ground Of newly discovered evidence,
and alleges the following grounds for
his appcaI
l~t That the denial of lis said mo
ION is not in accordance with sound
discretion after considering the eri
lcnce adduccd
III That the court erred in It's Gnd
,ng that it did not appear that injustice
had been douc, and that upon another
trial with the newly discovered evi-
+ oenrc 4 different verdict would be re
turned.
! Aud the sand respondent claims that
there are errors aud cX,cpts 70 the
findings il the report of the facts sub
mitted hy the trial court IN connection
with its denial of said motion in the
following particulars:
Isl That in the 4th specification Of
said findings the trial court erred I'D
evidently mseonceiying great part
Of the evidence submitted hy the state
aud have ignored entirely the evidence
adduccd hy the respondent. which
proved beyond any doubt the inten
tions OF the respondent in going &c
Halifax. aud explained the reasons Of
his going ami the alleged condition q
the .ouse. The evidence was that hi.
destination was Chester, Nova Scotia
and not Halifax.
ID. That the court in its 9TH specu
cation erred IN finding that the re
spondent signed manifest for til,
trunk in the name of 0. Moland Hall
fax, and that it was addressed TO O
Moland, Halifax.
3rd That the court erred iii it
finding that the chimney cap in tin
chimney ut the bottom Of which tn
postoilicc receipt was found, WAS Iocse
18th. That the trial court erred in it
finding that it did not appear that tn
jury found adversely to the respond
emf ON the question of the p0stof1ic
, receipt. and the respondent says tina
: every other circumstance cOunectin,
him with this crime was fully and con
plctelv explained and proved consist
4 emily with his innocence, and that tn
E said receipt and its being found in I'll
i chimney connected with his tenemcn
d was the only circumstance ON which
= verdict of guilty could be predicate,
Q 9TH. That the trial court erred j
! its finding IN that it did not Md tha
5 the receipt Was ''plantcd either b
IA the real murdered or by someone seel
ing to obtain the reward, and say
I that this z question for the iur
It after considering the newly discoverc
evidence.
9th. That the trial court erred
its finding that Il jury upon ne
: trial, with the newly discovered cv
tlcnce submitted, would probabl
Is reach u like result aud says that sat
10 finding is not INF accordance with
g sound and reasonable discretion.
n 9TH. That the trial court erred
II finding that probably he postotte
III receipt was not found with the Gill,
il letter which Was plckel up by t
IL engine crew, and that they cs ldcni
It. ignored the sworn statements Of L
- four members Of the engine crew, "a
have adopted as conclusive their ops
in ion as to the appearances of said J
4 ceipt.
a.. sth Aud the respondent further 50
= that at the time of the commission
:. said crime. and for several DAYS thei
n after, the newspapers circulating in t
- county Of Cheshire Published much
- the evidence and circumstances ee
- Meeting said respondent with 81
crime, and that none of his .eviaen
or explanations were mentioned, whe
by the community were prejudiced, a
ar that this prejudice was made eV1de
as ct the drawing of the jury for
ers trial of said ease, and that an cxamll
Tot ton of the whole record and cvjde1
w, adduccd at the trial will demonstr;
| | that the verdict of the jury was I
ain result of bias and prejudice; and Il
in view of the newly discovered e