Norwich bulletin., 1914-06-11
FAMOUS TRIALS
THE TRIAL OF EUGENE ARAM.


 There was so much that was un- usual and romantic in the crime and trial of Eugene Ara1n that both Thomas Hood and Bulwer Lytton found it of sufficient appeal to pre- serve it to posterity in poetry and fic- tion. It was due to their interest that a common murderer is more or less of a hero. not through extolling crime, but through the cleverness with which it was hidden for so many years. So much sympathy for Eugene was ere ated by Hoods poem that determined efforts have been made at various times and by various writers to prove that he was a martyr. but the evil dence against him was too conclusive to be argued aW.ly.
 The Aram crime was first revealed in 1I59. when some workmen were en- gagged in digging out stone in a quarry near Knaresborough, England, when they suddenly came upon a human skeleton. The bones were collected and taken into the village and an ef- fort was made to identify them. Ore of the old inhabitants remembered that a man named Daniel Clark had mysteriously disappeared some fifteen years before. Then another old inhab- itant recited how Clark was intimate with a man named Houseman and he was last seen in Houseman's com pany, So Houseman was hunted up and an effort was made to find out what he knew about Clark's disap- pearance.
 After being closely questioned, Houseman finally made a confession. The bones that had been dug up were not those of Clark but Houseman led them to the place where Clark was buried. In Houseman's confession he said that he and Clark and Eugene Aram had been associated for some time in d general swindiing scheme. Aran who aduontad oto directed the operations, and Clark and Houseman did the coarse work
 After successful robbery upon d. viding the spells one evening Clark and Aram got into an altercation and the latter killed the former and threat had seen. Aram moved away from the scene of the murder, but upon Houseman's confession he was appre- hended and was brought to trial.
 On Aug 3, 1759, Houseman, Aram and Henry Terry were indicted for the murder of Daniel Clark on the night between the 7th and 9th of February, 1T44 or 1745. Houseman was first tried, but the evidence not being suf- ficient he was acquitted. Thus free, he was entirely at liberty to give evil dence against Aram, the principal. who actually committed the crime. But from Houseman's evidence 1t .s not improbable to suppose that Clark $ death was previously concerted be- tween them and that their end in selves entirely masters of all the goods in Clark's possession.
 Aram, at the trial, asked Houseman how he could be 50 positive as to swear that he saw him strike Clark, when he himself admitted that it was done at night, in the depth of win ter, when everybody knows the nights arc dark. To this Houseman answered that though this was done in the night, yet the moon was then up, and that it was light enough to distinguish objects at & short distance, thoguh not very distinctly, and that he could see by the motion of Aram's hand that he was striking Clark, though he could not perceive the weapon with which he struck him
 The jury found Aram guilty. Arams defense, which he read before the court, is often printed as an unusual example of a paper of this kind, be- ing in much better language than IS often heard under criminal prosecu- tions. Being returned to the prison he could not be prevailed upon to make any other confession than that he justly deserved the punishment the law had pronounced against him. And in the morning of execution, the keep CT going to his cell to bring him out found him almost expiring, having with a razor cut his left arm above the elbow. by which means he had lost so much blood that he was very weak. Aram had tried to prove his innocence by technical strategy and every trick known to the lawyers was vain. He was executed and his body carried to Knaresborough forest where it was hung in chains, in that part nearest to the town.