Year: 1877

Manchester, VT, disappeared. Two
men were arrested on suspicion OF
having done the foul deed. The evil
dence was circumstancial, but abso-
lutely overwhelming. Every incl
dent fitted with the theory Of their
guilt. So strong was the case, that,
acting under the advice of counsel,
the prisoners entered the plea of gull
ty and threw themselves upon the
mercy of the court. The Judge sem
fenced them to be hanged. The Gov
ernor was deaf to all entrcaties for
communication. But just before the
hanging the missing man put in an
appearance, safe and sound. He had
not been SO much as abducted or
frightened away. His mysterious de-
parture was q freak of his own, the
prisoners having had nothing what
ever to do with it. In the permanent
literlure Of extraordinary criminal
practice that Manchester case has a
conspicuous place.


1t now looks as If a neighboring
Vermont town, Rutland, was to furn-
ish another case quite az remarkable,
showing how uncertain is circumstan-
tial evidence.


juno 8, 1874, the house of Annie
Frieze, in the suburb of Rutland, was
discovered on fire. 1t was then about
half-past I in the morning. 1t was
found that the inmate herself had
been murdered. Evidently some one
had cut her throat and set fire to the
house in hope that the body would be
SO charrcd that the real cause of her
death would not be suspected. She
was a woman of loose character. II
was soon noticed that John Z. Phair,
who had been quite intimate with
her, was missing. Suspicion rested
on him. He was known to have been
in town the evening before. Fortwo
days he was missing. The second
day he made his appearance and was
arrested. He protested his innocence.
and declared that he had been to
Boston and Providence in search of
employment. The explanation was
looked upon as "too thin" In due
time it was discovered that some OF
the clothing and jewclry of the mur-
dered woman had been pawncd in
Boston. That rendered Phair's cx-
PLANTATION confirmation of the theory
of guilt. The pawnbrokers with
whom the property was found gave
description of the pawncr, whicl,
applied to Phair. Later still, they
were brought into court and asked to
identify the man. Out of large
crowd they selected Phair, declaring
him to have been the man. He pro-
tested that he was in Providence at
the time the goods were pawned. He
could adduce no evidence, however,
to that effect, and the jury concluded
that the alibi was a fraud. They
were justified in drawing that con-
clusion, and If ever man ought to
have been condemned and executed
on circumstantial evidence, Phair
should have been.


With an enterprise quite unusual
in Eastern journalism, the Boston
Globe sent representative to Wind
sor, where the State Prison was loca-
ted, with instruction to send by tele-
graph any and everything of interest
connected with the case, and on the
morning of the day for the execution
that paper contained in full the state
ment Phair had prepared to be pub
lished after his death as a vindication
of his memory. Among other things
he told of the object and result of his
Providence trip. A Boston business
man read it during the forenoon and
recollectcd that about that time in the
summer of 1874 he had conversation
with man in the train, returning
from Providence to Boston, who told
the same story Of his unsuccessful
search for work in Providence that
Phair told in his vindication. Upon
examination he found that il was the
same day. OF course, he felt that per-
haps an innocent man was to be
hanged, and that he could save his
life. He took steps at once to secure
his reprieve, and succeeded, the Gov
ernOr granting a suspension of judg-
ment until May 4. A delay oftwcnty
minutes would have been fatal.


1t is probable that new trial will
be granted, and if it proves that the
prisoner was the Rutland passenger
on that Providence train, and the
pawn testimony can thus be rebutted,
it is altogether probable that q verdict
Of acquittal will be rendered. So
strong is the predisposition toward
charity that reaction would be in.
evitablo. One flaw in chain of
proof In murder case resting upon
circumstantial evidence, is fatal.


Ona clear case of murder, the eX-
treme penalty of the law is light pun
ishment, and the usual subterfugcs oi
insanity and the like ought to be dis
regarded; but if the case rests upon
suspicious circumstances, however
strong the evidence, imprisonment is
tho proper punishment-CA CAfcngo
Journal.