Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-06-08
Two Larceny Cases Heard
Before Judge Lancaster
Martha Collins Is Bound Over
For Theft Of S85
Harry Fedory, Complainant In the
Second Case Gets S3.62

Saturday was a comparatively busy
| day at municipal court, two cases
coming up for Judge Lancaster's con-
! sideration. The first one was that of
Martha Collins against whom a war
| rant had been sworn out Friday by
Mrs Joseph Grenier, charging her
with the larceny of $S5 from Mrs.
Henrietta Roderick. mother of the
| complainant 1t was learned from the
testimony that the respondent had
| been employed at the Roderick home
stead doing homework up until about
two weeks ago, when she gave her no.
tice and left. Mrs. Roderick is very
elderly lady and consequently put the
respondent in charge of the house,
she doing most of the marketing. The
money that was used to purchase the
necessary articles for the household
was kept in the top drawer of
chiffonier and Miss Collins used to go
there and take whatever was needed
to pay the bills. The respondent was
represented by Melvin f. Sawtelle,
while Samuel Titcomb conducted the
case for the prosecution. Through the
advice of her counsel the respondent
waived the reading of the warrant
Mrs. Henrietta Roderick was the
first witness to take the stand. She
testified that the respondent had been
engaged in doing housework at her
home since December and that she
paid her 81 per week. She gave the
respondent the keys to the chlton1er
in which was the money. and used TO
allow her to do a great deal of the
purchasing for the house. In the sec
ond drawer, according to witness, the
money which was stolen was kept
This amount was sent 10 witness in
the form of a check from Massachu-
sets and a letter concerning same
was written and respondent read 1t to
witness. Witness claimed that the re-
spondent also saw the money When II
was given to her.
A number of other witnesses We're
examined including Mrs. Grenler, the
complainant, who testified that the
respondent had told her on one occa-
sion that she felt peculiar because ev-
cry time she went to the money
drawer, she was watched closely.
Norman MacGhee, grandson of Mrs.
Roderick took the stand and told of
the respondents leaving the house
unexpectedly before her notice was
up. At the conclusion of the proseeu-
tons case Attorney Sawtelle argued
that there had not been sufficient evil
dence to warrant the conviction of the
respondent and asked that she be dis
charged. If the court was not salts
fed with this he wanted the respond
ent to take the stand. His motion was
overruled and the respondent took the
stand to testify in her own defence.
Her testimony was substantially de-
NAL of that of the prosecutions wit
nesses. She said it was true that she
had the keys to the chiffonier drawer
but that she never unlocked the draw
er from which it was alleged that the
money was stolen. She handled only
such funds as was necessary to pur-
chase the articles for the house and
that was kept in the top drawer. She
denied that she left before her notice
was up She left on a Sunday night,
had partly planned to stay until the
next morning to assist in the wash
ing, but changed her mind.
It came out on direct examination
of one of the prosecutions witnesses
that the respondent had been seen to
have $50 or $40 on her person when
she (the respondent changed some
money for Mrs. Roderick. To this the
respondent replied that she had two
$40 bills which were her own earnings
and nothing that belonged to the Rod
ericks. Counsel for prosecution cross
examined her briefly and then rgued.
At the conclusion Judge Lancaster
found probable cause to hold the re-
spondent in the sum of 5000 for her
appearance to the September term of
the superior court. Bail was furnished
and the prisoner released.
The second case was also for lar
ceny, coming up at the afternoon SEES
sion and in which the principals were
Harry Fedory and Alex Donchinko,
the former swearing out a warrant
against the latter for the larceny of
an axe. That trouble between these
two households has been frequent re-
mains undisputed, from the fact that
they have been in court on previous
occasions to settle their difficulties.
Neither party was represented by
counsel. Fedory took the stand and
identified the axe which he alleged
that Donchinko had in his shed, he
was sure that it was his axe, as it
had a knot in the handle. He had seen
this knot both when the axe was ly
ing down and when it was standing
up. He produced two witnesses who
also stated that it was his axe.
The respondent took the stand and
testified that the first that he knew
about the axe was when his wife had
told him that there was a strange one
in the shed, one that she did not think
belonged to them
Other witnesses testified as to see
ing the strange axe in the shed of
Donchinko, but did not know how it
got there. From the testimony given
in 1t showed that Fedorys wife was
the cause of more or less of the diff
Guilty between the two parties and
that it perhaps would not at all seem
surprising if she threw the axe into
the respondents shed to start some
thing.
At the conclusion of the hearing
Judge Lancaster found no evidence to
warrant the conviction of the respond