The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-03-03
WAKEFIELD APPEAL BASED
 MAINLY ON USE OF STORY.
 AS TOLD TO CORONER MIX
Lawyer, Arguing For New Trial. De- cIares Woman Was Not Told That Evidence Could Be Used Against Her -== Forty Four Other Excep= tiOns Taken

--- Hartford, March sThe appeal of Mrs. Bessie J. Wakefield of Bristol, who is at the state prison in eWth- Rrsf1eld under sentence of death TOT Eoruplfcity in the murder of her hus- band William o. Wakefield, some months ago, was the first case argued today at the. opening of the supreme court of errors for the March term Mrs Wakefield was sentenced to hang with Plew, her paramolr. in the early hours of tomorrow, March 4, but her appeal acted as a stay or execu- f5on Attorney Thomas F. Devine, Of Waterbury. is counsel for Mrs.. Wake field, and States Attorney A. A. All ing, of New Haven, opposed the ap- peal on the part of the state
 The appeal is a motion for new trial and, although it was the last on the docket, it was the first to be taken up, all others being continued There were 10 women present to hear the arguments. Prayer was offered by the Rev Dr. James Goodwin. rector of Christ church. this city, and court was formally opened by Deputy Sher- fir Charles H. Latham
 45 EXCEPTIONS TAKEN.
 The exceptions taken by the de- fendant were forty-fve in number and fin twenty-three instances the court was asked to strike out paragraphs fr the finding of facts prepared by Judge Burpee- This finding was or d14 paragraphs Some of the e1- Eeptions were these:
 The defense claims the court erred in admitting the testimony of Coroner Mix, of New Haven county ,and in overruIing the objection of fthe de- Eendant to the admission of his tes- Eiu1ony
 That the court erred in the circu1n- EtanGes disclosed by the evidence in failing to instruct. the juFy as to the affect in law where a conslzsrafor aban- dons q common purpose or conspiracy end the court erred in fai1inE to charge the jury as to the law con troa1ng the situation where two per sons are engaged in an offense and one by word or deed signt1ed his or her intention to abandon a. common purpose A
 REGARDING PIEw's sToRY. That the court erred in failing to Eharge the jury that the guilt Of the defendant must be proved independent ly of the confession of James Flew. That the court erred in failing to charge the jury that the guilt of the defendant must be proved indepen- Gently of the question of guilt of James Flew
 That the court erred and rnfstooh Che law in charging the jury as fol. lows-
 ssWaasthsr she be guilty of murder
 
 the evidence in that case has con r1nced your minds beyond reasonable doubt that she had such knovledgt and connection with this crime, tha she in the eye of the law was equally guilty with the man who committed tfse crfme'' That the court erred in neg1ecins and refusing to charge the jury il conformity with the defendants re quest as to the weight of and scope O circumstantia1 evidence.
 That the court erred in failing tt instruct and caution the jury agains confusing the question of the guilt O Bessie J. Wakefield of the c1fm whereof she was charged with tn odium of her intimacy with Jame P1ewS
 ERROR IN JURY CHARGE
 That the court erred in it's charg to the jury when it said: ''It has beel admitted and it is not disputed tha this killing was done by PIew. *-* Now, concerning this woman whA stands here accused before you of tn Harne crime, if you should deter1niu that P1ew was guilty of this crime you will have to consider cArefull, whether the evidence ddscloses and es 6ab1ishes in your mind beyond a req gonabIe doubt that this woman kney of the purpose The had in mind whel he left her that Sunday night an, coruseled, aided, abetted, assisted O caused him to carry it out
 That the court erred in it's charg er ti1e fury in saying. 'It is not neces narv for the state to prove that ther was an agreement in words or il wrt8ing between the accused to com init the offense in question It is suf acdenf in this respect to prove an Gacts and circumstances from whici may reasonably and justly be draw che inference that such agreement wa actually and freely formed and actual 4v exisfed between tFe prisoners ac ersed-"
 That the court erred in instructin, Inc fury in part as follows:
 sI do not recall in this eyidenc how before you for consideration re latfrsy to the purpose and conduct o P4ew, anything which would reduc he ofnense from murder in the first de wree to murder in the second de mree. If, however. it shou1 Bccur to you that there is any evi Gence here by which any construc Riora can reduce Plew's crime to mur Ser in the second degree and by go haR one step further can reduce tn crime which Mrs. Wakefield knew sh was a0out to commit to the same de gree. it Is your duty to conside E.
 OBJECTS TO INSTRUCTIONS. That the court erred in comment hae on the testimony of the defendant Wakefield, the state, when tn court said:
 -.@ha aAzniza thak an that night sh