The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1918-02-07
ANNA FELCH
CASE ARGUED
Her Attorney Claims the State OF Yer
mont Had No Right to Bring Her Case
to Supreme Court Under the Law, but
if the Law Did Presume to Grant the
Action the Act Is Unconstitutional.

|
The arguments in the Orange county
case OF State VS.. Anna Fclch of Waits
River were concluded in Vermont su-
lpreme court this morning, having been
commenced Wednesday afternoon. States
! Attorney Sherburne of Randolph made
the opening argument for the state, ex-
planning why the case had come to SUI.
preme court and arguing relative to the
exceptions which the state took TO the
presentation OF evidence by the defend
ant. His argument was not very long.
The defendants presentation of the
case was made by A. &. Fay. lie based
his argument upon two points. namely
that the statutes under which the state
had carried the case TO supreme court did
not permit such an action and, secondly.
that ii the court held it did, that the
statute was unconstitutional and invalid,
The defense raised the question as TO
whether the state has any standing in
the supreme court under the eircum-
stances in this case. The state relied on
No 81 of the acts of 1912, but the de-
Tense claimed that No. 90 does not confer
the right and explains the reasons why.
and then if the act does pretend to give
the right it is invalid upon the grounds
that person cannot twice be placed in
jeopardy for the same crime
Mr.. Fay, in presenting the case, gave
an interesting history of the enactment
OF laws governing exceptions in cases
dating from 1871 OF the Vermont law and
carrying the history down to the session
of 1912, showing that the state must
base its exceptions upon No. 90 of 1912;
but he claimed that the cause must be
carried, under that act, TO the higher
court for a decision before the main is
sues are tried and that the act did not |
provide for a cause going to the higher |
court upon exceptions after the final |
judgment had been imposed by the lower |
court, and that no provision is made for
a new trial.
He argued that it was not the intent |
Of the legislature 10 enact law that |
would allow the state a right which it |
had not heretofore enjoyed that il could |
twice place persons life in jeopardy by |
trial of the same offense but if the
,ourt did find that it was the legisla
lures intent, then he argued under that
portion of the constitution of Vermont
pertaining to the flaws of the land 2 ex
.luded the right of twice jeopardizing
PERSONS life. He also referred to the
Magma Charta. from which some Of our
aw was drafted
Because of the uniqueness OF the situ-
ltion, the arguments in this case were
ollowed by many lawyers who were not
h.. . = e . ~. 4
history of the state that case has come
o the supreme court following the ac
initial of the respondent in murder
rial and, naturally, there is a great deal
t interest in the matter.
Anna Felch, at the June, 1917, term of
'range county court, was acquitted of | |.
he charge of numbering her husband and
'as released on bail which she is now
nder, haying not been called into court
0 listen to the arguments, as frequently /,
as taken place in the years past. II /,
as a surprise to the respondents and
lany other lawyers when the state took
xceptions to the verdict of the jury and =
.arted the case for supreme court. The !,
,spondent took exceptions to the allow
nee OF the states exceptions but was !
and therefore the supreme
,urt is besought for an opinion in the y y
after. =
Mr.. Fay arraigned Otis Williams. the =
'incipal witness in the case, during his =
for the testimony which be =,
Villiams1 gave on the stand in the trial ).
Mrs. Felch. He also arraigned those II
with the questioning of Mrs.
,lch before telling her she was under
rest, during questioning which took
ace in Bradford. The defense also o
aimed that the failure of the lower
urt to pronounce judgment on the yer
Ct. which would have been discharging
e respondent, was an error. He asked la
at if the supreme court found it had to
power to pronounce the Judgment on til
e verdict, and that if the respondents f.
sition was sustained, mandate direct Sc
: the lower court to pronounce judg- %
mt be made, but the defendant be- Jap
we'd the higher court could end the wi
sc. be
The case of Fadden VS.. c. G.. Austin & co
rs, a chancery case, was heard to-day, MI
, action being brought TO restrain the wi
fendants from selling the property of on
, late Mrs. Fadden on an execution. the Nl'
intiff claiming marriage rights. The otl
ie of Havelin VS.. eastman was sub stI
tied on briefs. pa
---- arr
nv