Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1919-10-15
JOHN ANDERSON, BREW
Err, NICHOLAS ROGERS,
BANGOR, ASK PARDON

Two petitions for pardon. both
from Penobscot county, have been re-
ceived at the Executive department
at the State House and hearings oa
the petitions will be assigned Wednes-
and Council.
John T. Anderson, former resi-
dent Of Brewer, who is serving a sem
tence of not less than six nor more
than 10 years in the States prison
for attempted rape, was sentenced
Feb. is, 1916 in the supreme judicial
court for Penobscot county after hav-
ing passed a period of time at the
Bangor State hospital for observa-
ton as to his sanity.
! In his petition for a pardon Ander-
son states that he is not guilty of the
crime of which he was convicted,
and being over Y years Of age be-
cause of his confinement and WORRY,
he is in poor health and further con-
finement would seriously affect his
health.
Nicholas ROBBERS Of Bangor. was
sentenced in the superior court for
Penobscot county by Judge Bertram
L. Smith to serve not less than two
and one-half nor more than five
,, years for rape at the last September
term.
Ex.Sherin Arthur L. Thayer Of
Bangor Is the counsel for the petit
TONERS in this case.
In his petition for a pardon, ROBBERS
says:
The petitioner declares that he is
not guilty Of the crime of which he
was convicted. 1t is true that after
a trial before a jury he was found
guilty. but he believes the verdict
was reached largely because of the
following reasons:
First-Because Of his ignorance Of
| the technical meaning Of the word
arrest" he made certain statements
! upon the witness stand during his
! trial. which statements we're made by
! him in good faith and believed by
him to be true. but which were
! proven by the evidence put before the
jury at great length. by the attorney
for the State, to be technically false,
which fact was dwelt upon at great
length by the attorney for the State
in his argument before the jury,
much to the prejudice Of the re-
J spondent in the hands of the jury
Seco2d-Recause one of the princi-
| pal witnesses for the respo ndent,
| Theresa Rogers by name. was unable
to testify in English and was obliged
to testify through an Interpreter,
| which interpreter Mrs. Rogers could
not always understand because of the
! fact that the interpreter used a dia-
| lect unfamiliar to the witness, by
| reason Of which handicap the said
witness did not properly Understand
! questions rropounded to her, tie said
| witness, nor could she make the
meaning|of her answers clear to the
jury through said interpreter, all to
the great prejudice of the respondent
Third-Because certain evidence Of
| great Importance to the respondent
was not placed before the jury at all,
although known to the attorneys for
| the respondent to be in existence and
the parties who were give it in court,
because Of the fact that certain un-
expected answers were given by the
witnesses for the State ia questions
! propounded by the attorneys for the
! defence. on cross examination, by
! which answers the defence was
, bound. they having been made by
witnesses for the State, on cross ex-
! animation, in regard to a collateral
manner, which collateral matter,
however. was the very gist Of the
defence of the respondent, and be-
cause of this fact practically the en-
tire defence of the respondent was
barred out. vedy much to the preju-
dice of the respondent.
Had advantage not been taken Of
the respondents ignorance of certain
technical terms as explained above,
and had said witness. Theresa Ros-
| ers. been better able to express her.
self before the court, and had all the
evidence for the defnce which the re-
| spondent had there in court been
properly presented to the jury, your
petitioner honestly believes that he
| would have been exonorated of the
crime of which he now stands con.
victed and for the punishment u