The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1914-10-21
Supreme Court of New Hamp-
shire Tells Why New
Trial Was Denied
SAYS EVIDENCE OF
GUILT WAS ABUNDANT
Alleged Finding of Registry Receipt
Near Scene OF Murder Involves
Question Of Fact for Lower Court
No Error of Law Found.
Especial to The Reformer.)
KEENE. y. IL OCT

KEENE, \. H., Oct y.
COPIES OF the opinion of the New Hamp-
shire supreme court denying John Fl
Wren a new trial on the charge of killing
>. Stewart Hamilton at HnsdaIe Feb. :.
l9l.'. have been received here bv the
attorneys IN the case. The opinion is by
Chief Justice Parsons Judge phmmar
was absent and Judge Walker dissepted
as to the exclusion OF evidence OF an as
sault upon Hamilton by other parties
oounsel for Wren have not decided what
their next step viii be
The exceptions to evidence were to the
admissions OF the testimony OF the Wit
ness, Dickson, that the defendant Wren
signed the name O. Moland 10 a certain
document and To the evidence of Mrs
Dompier of a statement made by the de-
PENDANTS wife. The defendant also ex-
cepted To the exclusion of evidence Of an
assault upon Hamilton by other parties
and that one N G. Adams when sum
moned as a witness by him attempted to
commit suicide
Inc opImon on the exceptions as to the
WITNESSES Dickson and Mrs Dompier are
| Of little interest to the average reader.
concerning largely rules Of evidence As
to the other exceptions the court SAYS
| CD Hamilton was in charge of work
men engaged in railroad construction.
lhe defendant inquired of a witness upon
cross examination as To an assault upon
! Hamilton by some OF the workmen. No
! evidence was offered as to the time of the
alleged assault The court excluded the
evidence as too remote, remarllng that il
evidence We're offered that the alleged as
! Sault was committed near enough to the
time OF the alleged murder to have any
connection with it or was so connected
! with a. IN haav
evidence would be admitted The excep-
tion To this ruling presents no question of
law The question for remotenesS is for
the trial court. The ruling IN effect was
one admitting the evidence, If shown to
have amy connection i'm time or effect with
the issue tried. In the absence of any
/ evidence of any date OF the alleged assault.
that such assault had any bearing upon
the issue tried does not conchsiveIy an
pear.
/ "a Upon the same ground the court
excluded evidence that a witness sum
moned by the defendant attempted sui
eide at the time he was directed to appear
IN court. The defendant. being charged
; with opportunity to commit the crime.
might answer by showing opportunity in
others Such fact appearing. evidence
tending to prove guilt in any one having
opportunity was competent The defend
ant could prove his innocence by showing
guilt In another inconsistent with his own
participation in the crime Although the
witness. Adams, attempted suicide when
, summoned to testify the bill of exceptions
: does not present amy evidence connecting
hlm with the crime other than that he
lNed IN house near the place where the
body was found Without some evidence
connecting the witness with the crime. it
loan l., 4
: conclusion of the trial court that the evi-
5 dence was too remote to aid the Jury was
erroneous. The suicidal act j. described in
= the defendants brief as unexplainable.
2 Tins would seem to be so upon the evi-
/ dence here, and If uneNpiainable, evidence
I of the act could have served only to con
+ fuse the iury and it was therefore prop
I erly excluded
T. The remaining exceptions taken at the
+ trial rest upon the objections to the argr-
T ment of the attorney general. Four stand
+ upon the claim that the argument mis-
stated the evidence The statement that
n Wren's employer had to pay milk bill
is supported by evidence that Wren was
t slow IN paying his bills and that in one
e instance his employer paid a milk bill for
n him; the statement that witness saw
i Wren disappearing IN the darkness. the
II dusk. going toward the Tiscom
II cut is supported by evidence as Is also
t the argument from Wren.s possession OF
n the overcoat for time after the killing.
n As to the last exception taken it appeared
r that IN the argument testimony was as
It cribed to one witness which was in fact
/. given by another While verdict may
5 he set aside for the introduction in argu
mcnt of facts not contained in the evi
dence, and persistent misstatement OF
4 Continued on Page 4J