Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1916-03-28

. few days before he met Prptce until
the time be left the state. IHits general
description OF the trip with Preece It
tallies with the evidence already intro
duced BY the state. Coming down to
tho Saturday night of the shooting, he
says that they lost their way several
times, and Preece was ugly and mad In
consequence. The horse was very tired,
and on account Of the snow which was
falling began to slip. Preece got ont to
attend to the horse. The dog started TO
follow and Preece pushed him back.
When Preece got ont he dragged with
him blanket which was laid over the
dasher and the knees Of the men, and that
caught the gun which was lying on the
blanket and d went of. Preece said.
"Oh, my Godr' and fell. Harrington
tried to revive him but failed.
Following Preece's death, Harrington,
according to his statement, took SIS In
money from Preece's pocket. drove the
team to South Paris and put mp ut the
hotel. He did not sleep any that night,
and In the morning he went to Portland
and then on to Massachusetts,, where he
had since gone under the name of Peter
Howard.
Arthur ]. Landry OF Rumford testified
that he was In the sheriff's Office when
the statement was signed, and he corrob-
grated Sheriff Frothingham's testimony,
IS to the warning given Harrington be-
fore signing. After he had read the
statement before signing, he said.
"That's a. near right a. you can get It."
Cross.examination: In your investi-
CATION of this case, have you found that
the facts Tailed with what he has statedp
So far Al my end of the Investigation
went. had found out many of these
facts before Harrington's statement WAS
made.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Landry's tes-
timony, the state rested. This was
about $50 Friday afternoon.
After recess 1t Was announced that the
evidence In the case was closed, and
only the arguments remained. Mr.. No.
reg began bis argument at 4 O'Clock.
Mr.. Morey spoke for an hour and
twenty minutes, coniending that the
statement of Harrington was true, that
Preece was shot by the accidental dis
charge of the rife. The mud on the
knees and on the right hand, and the
course OF the bullet, tend to show the
truth of Harrington's story. Does fight
show guilt? Sometimes 1t does, and
sometimes It does not. A stranger in q
strange land, fearing that circumstances
would appear to be against him, might
fee though innocent. A murderer
would have hidden the body, which in
this case was not concealed ut all. Mr..
Morey took up Harrington's statement
item by item, and declared that the
state can not point out 10 it one untrue
thing.
A session was held Friday evening for
Attorney General Pattapgall to make
bis argument. Mr.. Pattapgall spoke
less than an hour, logically and forcibls.
he first presented the undisputed facts,
hat these men had travelled together
across the state; that Preece was In
some way shot aud killed; that his dead
body was robbed of every dollar by Har.
rington, who thereafter lived under an
other name. He reviewed the story OF
he shooting ~ told by Harrington, and
pronounced 1t false and unreasonable.
W hat, he asked, would any honest man
have done in Harrington's place If bis
story was true? he would have put the
body into the carriage and taken It to
he nearest neighbours. Mr.. Pattangall
lsked the jury to take the rife in their
Dom, and try to find out how 1t could
% discharged by getting tangled In a
blanket. No person may have contra
licted the statement Of Harrington, he
aid, but reason and common sense con-
radict 1t.
Saturday morning Judge Haley gave
he jury bis charge, occupying about an
,our and twenty minutes. At the con.
,lusion he took up q number of para
graphs prepared by the counsel for the
defence, which he was requested to give
he jury as instructions. Most of them
be refused to give except as already