New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-09

bought two days before the murueii
rope like that with which his motor
boat was fitted, the square, practical
sailors knot that Small was IN th'
habit Of tying.
"You have heard it admitted for the
first time, hero to-day, that the kero'
sene which Small bought the morning
Of the murder was for use in the house
YOU have heard OF that sinister threat
which the respondent coupled with ms
admission Of former attack on ms
wife: Yes. hit her on the head win
a bootjack | ought TO have killed
her, and | will yet.
"You have heard OF an occasion
when, after the woman had run Their
rowboat aground, he raised an oar and
would have struck her down save tol
the interference OF the boy, Phil Davis;
of another occasion when he kicked her
and cried: Get into the house. wen
settle that later"
Theory Of Defence Assailed
OF the "red line" through which the
defence sought to prove that Mrs. small
had been alive or only short time
dead when her body fell into the cellar
pool. hours after the departure OF her
husband, futile disposed with savage
righteousness. Against the testimony
Of the three country practitioners VINO
were the respondents medical experts
he confidently set up the contradiction
sworn TO by DR.. George b. Magrath, OF
Boston, one Of the leading medlco-legal
pathologists Of the country.
Reporter Casey's story of the front
door lock found in the ruins Of the
bungalow was treated in similar fash
ion
The defence in closing had practi-
cally abandoned both red line and
lock as bespeaking Smal's innocence.
The one seemed already TO have been
crushed by the weight Of DR.. Magrath's
testimony and the state had succeeded
in establishing that the side door
through which the respondent passed
from his home for the last time was
equipped with spring lock, when
snapped behind him as he left.
at occurs TO me-" futile went on,
that Providence directed the search OF
the ruins to the clews which are IN
evidence as exhibits and afterward con-
tinued to guide the states inyesuga-
tion OF the crime.
Small had taken every possible pre-
caution to cover himself He had his
reason for asking Kennett to bring the
mail down from the postoffice with
him, for otherwise it might have been
delivered after his departure and be-
fore the fire was timed to start, leading
TO p discovery of the body.
"And there was his scheming 10 get
Ed Corners away. There were TWO
reasons for that. Corners was the only
neighbor left on the deserted shore OF
Lake Ossipee who would have been
likely TO call at the house that after
noon. Corners on his way TO Boston
would be sure TO do nothing OF the
sort. and Mrs. Corners would not have
visited Mrs. Small without him as es-
cort.
"Now. Corners was the insurance
agent through whom the respondent
had taken out the joint insurance pol
icy short time before. II was he
who must certify 10 the facts which
would enable Small to collect 100000
from the John Hancock Life lnsur-
ance Company. Would he not, in more
ways than one, be valuable witness
to the abb?
you recall that the respondent took
10 Boston in his grip complete IN
ventory Of his house furnishings. lie
says he intended to put it in a safe
deposit vault in the city; that he had
compiled il, not Immediately before the
fire, but the last fall. In substantial
tion IL is pointed out that it was a $l5
stove which figured in the list, whereas
Small had replaced IL months ago with
one that cost him SIG. But do you
not credit this diabolical mind with
the foresight thus TO stamp a fictitious
date into his inventory
Points Made by Defence
William 6. Matthews, closing for the
defence, had laid great stress on the
fact that Small had shopped around
before taking out the joiat life insur-
ance policy, and that he might have
saved 500 on the first years premium
had he taken insurance offering as
large death benefit but lesser ulti-
mate advantages. This, he argued,
was proof that the respondent had not
contemplated profting by murder when
insuring himself and his wife.
Probably no feature Of the defence's
summing up was brought out with such
emphasis. The other points made by
Mr.. Matthews were that his client had
not had sufficient motive, aside from
I,
tions after news reached him of his
wife's death were those of man limo
cent Of crime.
"The question of the premium was
not an important matter" the Attorney
General replied to this argument. at
was a question more than one Of s2l0,
Of which agent he could work more
readily. That agent was Corners.
"Also. when he took out the policy
Small had only $4,000 in the bank and
no regular income, yet the payment OF
the first premium took a quarter OF his
entire capital. ! suggest the inference
is strong he didn't intend to make
many payments"
Mr.. futile also asked the jury TO
consider what other person could have
had any interest in the complete de-
struction Of the body, remarkng on
the fact that a man of the respondents
mechanical bent could have arranged
for a timed fire with an apparatus
that would not fail once in a hundred
trials.
"Shall we say, when we hear that
Small wept during all the motor trip
over the mountains from Boston. after
he had been informed by telephone
that his bungalow had burned and his
wife was missing, that ne was not a
man who could have acted a part?" the
Attorney General demanded of the
jurors.
Then let us consider the postal card
he mailed to his wife from Young's
Hotel in the city, dated with the day,
hour and even the minute of posting.
LET us consider that, a broken man
supposedly helpless in the hands OF
friends, he argued with the chauffeur
who carried him from the city TO
Mountain View, and then struck him.
Would friends be able TO keep an inno-
cent man from going at once that night
10 search the ruins, a man who did not
know positively that his wife had per