JOHN P. PHAIR: 
A COMPLETE HISTORY OP 
VERMONT’S CELEBRATED MURDER CASE, 
CONTAINING 
A REPORT OF THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION FOR THE MURDER 
OF ANN E. FRESSE, AT RUTLAND; THE HEARING ON 
EXCEPTIONS; THE SENTENCE; “DYING STATE- 
MENT;” TWO REPRIEVES; LEGISLATIVE 
PROCEEDINGS; PETITIONS FOR 
NEW TRIAL, AND FINAL 
EFFORT TO STAY 
EXECUTION. 
Compiled from the Stenographer's Report and Official Records, 
BY 
E. C. CAimiGAK, 
CORRESPONDENT of the “boston journal” 
BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
1879 
Scud remittances and orders to E. C. CARRIGAA, Lock Box 1030, Boston R.O. JOHN P. PH A TP: 
A COMPLETE HISTORY OF 
VERMONT'S CELEBRATED MURDER CASE, 
CONTAINING 
A REPOET OF THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION FOR THE MURDER 
OF ANN E. FREEZE, AT RUTLAND ; THE HEARING ON 
EXCEPTIONS; THE SENTENCE; “DYING STATE- 
MENT ; ” TWO REPRIEVES ; LEGISLATIVE 
PROCEEDINGS; PETITIONS FOR 
NEW TRIAL, AND FINAL 
EFFORT TO STAY 
EXECUTION. 
Compiled from the Stenographer's Report and Official Records, 
BY 
E. C. CAKKIGAK, 
CORRESPONDENT OF THE “BOSTON JOURNAL.” 
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
BOSTON: 
1879. Copyright, 1879. 
E. C. CAEKIGAN. 
PRESS OF 
Rockwell & Churchill. 
S9 Arch Street, Boston, PEEFACE. 
The following report of this extraordinary case has been 
compiled from the stenographic report, official records, and 
from the best available sources of information. It has been 
necessary to condense somewhat, but the substantial part of 
the testimony of every witness is given. The proceedings 
at the trial, and on the final petition for a new trial, are given 
as fully as space would permit. It is believed that the 
writer has given within comparatively brief limits, and at a 
price that will place it within the reach of all, a substantial 
and accurate report of this case, which, both in fact and law, 
is one of the most remarkable that ever occurred. 
E. C. C. TRIAL OF JOHN P. PHAIR. 
CHAPTER I. 
THE TRIAL. 
PRESENT. 
WHEELER, . . . Justice Supreme Court.' 
WHEATON, . . . County Judge. 
HOLLISTER,. « “ 
E. J. O RMS BEE, . . State’s Attorney. 
COL. C. H. JOYCE, 
MARTIN G. EVERTS, 
WALTER C. DUNTON, 
COL. W. G. VEAZEY, 
D. E. NICHOLSON, 
Court. 
Counsel 
for 
State. 
Counsel 
for 
Respondent. 
INDICTMENT. 
Be it Remembered, etc., That John P. Phair, of Rutland, in the 
Count}' of Rutland and State of Vermont, on the ninth day of 
June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
seventy-four, at Rutland, in the County of Rutland aforesaid, with 
force and arms in and upon one Anna Freeze, in the peace of God 
and this State then and there being, did make an assault: And 
that the said John P. Phair, with a certain axe, the said Anna 
Freeze then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice afore- 
thought did strike, and bruise, and cut, giving to the said Anna 
Freeze then and there, with said axe, in and upon the front side of 
the neck of the said Anna Freeze, one mortal wound, of which said 
mortal wound the said Anna Freeze then and there died instantly. 
And so the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do 
say that the said John P. Phair, the said Anna Freeze then and 
there, in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of 
his malice aforethought, did kill and murder, contrary, etc. 
And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do 
further present, that the said John P. Phair, of Rutland, in said 
County of Rutland, on the ninth day of June, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, at Rutland, in 
the County of Rutland aforesaid, with force and arms, in and upon 
one Anna Freeze, in the peace of God and this State then and 6 
there being, did make an assault; and that the said John P. Phair, 
with a certain sharp instrument, the name and particular shape and 
size of which is to the Grand Jurors unknown, the said Anna 
Freeze then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice afore- 
thought, did strike and stab, giving to the said Anna Freeze then 
and there, with the said sharp instrument, in and upon the right 
side of the neck of the said Anna Freeze, four mortal wounds, 
each of which wounds were three-fourths of an inch in length, one 
of which wounds pierced the neck of the said Anna Freeze so far 
as to puncture the muscles of the back of the neck, and three of 
said wounds pierced the neck of the said Anna Freeze to the bone 
of the neck, of which said mortal wounds the said Anna Freeze 
then and there instantly died. And so the Grand Jurors aforesaid, 
upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said John P. Phair the 
said Anna Freeze then and there, in manner and form aforesaid, 
feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and 
murder, contrary, etc. 
And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do 
further present that the said John P. Phair, of Rutland, in said 
County of Rutland, on the ninth day of June, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, at Rutland, in 
said County of Rutland, with force and arms, in and upon one 
Anna Freeze, in the peace of God and this State then and there 
being, did make an assault; and that the said John P. Phair, with 
certain instruments and weapons, the name and character of which 
are unknown to the Grand Jurors, the said Anna Freeze then and 
there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did 
strike, cut, and stab, giving to the said Anna Freeze, with the 
instruments and weapons aforesaid, in and upon the throat and 
right side of the neck of the said Anna Freeze, one mortal cut, and 
four mortal stabs, said mortal cut extending from four to five 
inches in length across the front of the neck on throat, and pene- 
trating to the bone of the neck; and said four mortal stabs being 
on the right side of the neck, one of which extended to the muscles 
in the back of the neck, and three of said mortal stabs penetrat- 
ing to the bone of the neck, each of said four mortal stabs being 
three-fourths of an inch in length, of which said mortal wounds the 
said Anna Freeze then and there instantly died ; and so the Grand 
Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say, that the said 
John P. Phair the said Anna Freeze then and there, in manner and 
form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, 
did kill and murder, contrary, etc. 
And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do 
further present, that the said John P. Phair, of Rutland, in said 
Count}’ of Rutland, on the ninth day of June, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, at Rutland, in 
said County of Rutland, with force and arms, in and upon one 
Anna Freeze, in the peace of God and this State then and there 
being, did make an assault; and that the said John P. Phair, in 
some way and manner, and by some means, instruments, and 
weapons to the Jurors unknown, then and there feloniously, wil- 
fully, and of his malice aforethought, did strike, cut, stab, and 7 
gash, giving to the said Anna Freeze then and there, in manner 
and form aforesaid, in, across, and upon the neck and throat of the 
said Anna Freeze, divers mortal wounds, of which mortal wounds 
the said Anna Freeze then and there instantly died; and as the 
Grand Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say that the 
said John P. Phair the said Anna Freeze then and there, in man- 
ner and form aforesaid, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, 
did kill and murder, contraiy, etc. 
And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do 
further present, that the said John P. Phair, of Rutland, in said 
County of Rutland, on the ninth day of June, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy four, at Rutland, in 
said County of Rutland, withforce and arms, in and upon one Anna 
Freeze, in the peace of God and this State then and there being, did 
make an assault, and that the said John P. Phair, in some way and 
manner and by some means, instruments, and weapons to the Jurors 
unknown, then and there, with like force and arms, feloniously, 
wilfully, and of his raalace aforethought, did beat, bruise, strike, 
cut, stab, and thrust, giving to the said Anna Freeze then and 
there, in manner and form aforesaid, in and upon the head, neck, 
throat, and body of the said Anna Freeze, divers mortal bruises, 
cuts, stabs, and wounds, of which mortal bruises, cuts, stabs, and 
wounds the said Anna Freeze then and there instantly died ; and 
so the Grand Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say 
that the said John P. Phair the said Anna Freeze then and there, 
in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of his 
malice aforethought, did kill and murder, contrary, etc. 
The prisoner was arraigned and plead “ Not Guilty.” 
A motion by respondent’s counsel was made to postpone the 
trial on the ground that sufficient time had not been given to pre- 
pare the defence ; but this was overruled. A motion was then made 
for a change of venue on the ground of certain injurious publica- 
tions in the Rutland papers which had prejudiced the people of 
Rutland County against the respondent. This was denied, and the 
impanelling of the jury proceeded, and the trial begun on the 29th, 
of September, 1874. 
Upon the impanelling of the jury, John P, Sheldon, called as a 
juror, on being interrogated, answered that he supposed he had, 
from reading accounts of the transaction in newspapers, previ- 
ously formed some opinion as to the guilt of the respondent, but 
did not think that he had ever expressed any opinion ; that if he knew 
his own position, he thought he was not so prejudiced but what he 
could try the case upon the evidence given in court. Upon this 
statement, counsel for the respondent claimed that he had a right 
to challenge this juror for cause. The Court held that this did not 
show good cause for challenge, and the juror was permitted to sit, 
to which the respondent excepted. Several other persons called 
as jurors, on being inquired of, answered that they had from read- 
ing accounts of the transaction at the time, formed some opinion 
as to the guilt of the respondent, but had never expressed any 
opinion concerning it, and had no bias so but that they could try 
the case upon the evidence given in court. Counsel for the re- 8 
spondent claimed the right to challenge each of these for cause, 
but the Court overruled the claim, and permitted the jurors to sit, 
to which the respondent excepted. 
Of these, Sylvester C. Tarbell, on being interrogated, answered, 
among other things as follows : 
Ques. Did you read the account of this matter in the Rutland 
papers ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 
Ques. Heard the matter talked of ? 
Ans. Yes, sir ; considerable. 
Ques. Did you form any opinion in regard to the guilt or inno- 
cence of the respondent? 
Ans. I think I did. 
Ques. Any bias or prejudice in the matter? 
Ans. No, sir. 
Ques. Have }rou expressed any opinion? 
Ans. Don’t know that I have. 
Ques. You have no bias one way or the other? 
Ans. No, sir. 
And Aaron N. Loveland, on being interrogated, answered as 
follows: 
By Respondent's Counsel. 
Ques. Where do 3’ou reside ? 
Ans. Pittsford. 
Ques. About how far from here ? 
Ans. About ten miles. 
Ques. Do you read our Rutland papers ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 
Ques. You read the account of this affair? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 
Ques. Have you formed any opinion in regard to it ? 
Ans. Yes, sir, I have more or less. 
the State's Attorney. 
Ques. Have you expressed any opinion in this case ? 
Ans. I don’t recollect as I have ; but still I might have done so. 
Ques. Have 3Tou formed such an opinion (if any) as to be in the 
way of your rendering an impartial verdict, according to the evi- 
dence given you in court upon trial? 
Ans. I don’t know as to that. 
Ques. Are you aware that you have any bias or prejudice in the 
matter ? 
Ans. I don’t know that I have. 
Ques. Have you any conscientious scruples as to finding the 
respondent guilty in a case where the punishment is death ? 
Ans. I think not. 
Ques. Have 3’ou anj7 recollection of expressing an opinion to 
any one, at any time, about the guilt or innocence of the prisoner? 
Ans. I don’t recollect that I have; but still the subject has 
been talked freely, and I might have done so. 9 
By the Court. 
Ques. Have you in your mind now any recollection of having 
expressed yourself as to the merits of this case, one way or the 
other ? Do you now remember any ? 
Ans. I don’t recollect now that I have ; still I might have done 
so. As I said before, 1 have conversed on this subject; this case 
has been frequently referred to; what I might have done I can’t 
say positively. 
The following jurymen were impanelled : 
John P. Sheldon, Fairhaven. Henry R. Cleft, Middletown. 
William L. Farnham, Poultney. Daniel H. Lane,Mt. Tabor. 
George Loomis, Pawlet. Harris O. Herrick, Danby. 
James H. Wood, Fairhaven. Sylvester C. Tarbell, Chittenden. 
Aaron N. Loveland, Pittsfield. Daniel S. Squire, Clarendon. 
Judson D. Packer, Mt. Holty. Philip D. Griswold, Castleton. 
THE CASE. 
State’s Attorney Ormsbee then made a brief statement of his 
case and the principal evidence which he expected to show as 
bearing against the prisoner at the bar as the real murderer. He 
reviewed the case from the day of the murder down to the present 
time; the breaking out of the fire, the finding of the charred 
remains of a human being in the burning building, the theory 
advanced concerning its identity with Mrs. Freeze, and that death 
ensued before burning; the arrest of John P. Phair as the alleged 
murderer, the facts of his having been a frequenter of her house 
both day and night, the discovery of goods, alleged to have 
been possessed by the murdered woman, in Boston and pawned by 
one “ E. F. Smith, St. Albans, Yt,” the identification b}*- parties in 
Boston of Phair as said Smith, and other leading features of the 
case as presented on behalf of the State. 
The Court then proceeded to the examination pf witnesses on the 
part of the State. The first witness called was John Jordan, of 
Rutland, who testified as follows : 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN JORDAN. 
Reside in Rutland, on Plain street, which leads from Forest 
street east to the fair ground, 60 or 70 rods east from where Mrs. 
Freeze lived. 
On Tuesday morning, the ninth of June last, while at breakfast, 
noticed a woman running across the road toward Mrs. Freeze; 
thought something unusual was up ; finished breakfast and went 
out doors ; saw two men running in same direction ; overtook them 
at Mrs. Freeze’s house; we found front door locked, so Keenan, 
Westcott, Whiting, and myself went around to back.door, which was 
unlocked, and went in ; everything was all right downstairs, and 
we went upstairs, where we found hall full of smoke; the 
front-room door was wide open, and the room full of smoke; 
could see a little under the smoke but could not see no blaze there ; 10 
Whiting and I went down and got some water to throw on ; then 
saw fire on the bed ; saw it was no use to try to put it out there as 
the smoke was so thick and so stifling we could not get to the fire ; 
we shut the door leading from the hall into the room where the fire 
Avas, and where the bed stood in a recess, and went downstairs; 
Whiting got a plank and pushed open a door into another room up- 
stairs which led by where the alcove was ; saAv the fire raging on 
the partition between; got in there and called for water; they 
brought it, but not sufficient to put the fire out; threw the clothes 
out; others outside broke open the windows of the room where the 
bed was, which gave a draft through and cleared out some smoke ; 
then came doAvnstairs as heat drove us out, and helped take out 
furniture out of a room downstairs. The ceiling of the kitchen fell 
soon after, so the bed could be seen ; Whiting and I took a pole to 
get the remains out, when they fell into the ruins; others took 
them on a board and took them aAvay ; saw them take the bod}7 out 
into the garden on a pastry-board ; examined the throat and saw a 
cut, and called others’ attention to it; remained there till the house 
burned down. 
There Avas no fire below when we first got there ; looked for an 
axe to get out the body from the upper story, but could find none ; 
Mrs. Freeze’s house Avas on the Avest side, end to the road, last 
one on Forest street going south ; land on the Avest was mostly 
uncultivated and coArered with brush, not ploughed, but used for 
pasture ; Mrs. Freeze had about a quarter of an acre cultivated. 
Am acquainted with Phair ; worked with him at Mansfield & Stim- 
son’s ; have no knowledge of his visiting Mrs. Freeze ; heard him 
mention her name, and have seen him in the vicinity of her house ; 
worked at M. & S.’s when he came to Rutland ; believe he came in 
May; did not go by Mrs. Freeze’s to go to Avork ; Avent past there 
the night before about five minutes past ten ; saw nothing unusual; 
don’t know whether there Avas any light there or not; saw two 
neAvspapers on the road next morning near there that were not 
there the night before ; it was about 6.30 in the morning when my 
attention Avas first called to the fire. 
The case Avas here adjourned for dinner, and at 2 P.M, the tes- 
timony of Mr. Jordan Avas continued : 
Don’t know as I kneAV of Phair going to Mrs. Freeze’s but one 
time when he came up AA'ith me, tAVO or three Aveeks before the fire. 
On Sunday, the 7th of June, I saAA7 him go there about 7 A.M.; 
Avas sitting at breakfast AA'hen he passed, coming from Mrs. Freeze’s 
house. 
Cross-examination.—Did not see Phair come out of Mrs. 
Freeze’s house ; saw him 60 or 70 rods from there ; the street I 
live on comes on to Forest street a little south of Mrs. Freeze’s 
house ; it Avas a 1£ story house, about 20 to 26 on the ground ; had 
kitchen, buttery, bed-room, and front hall on first floor, a Avood- 
shed, but no ell; tAvo rooms above, the back room not furnished or 
lathed ; Mr. Keenan, another man, and little boy were at the fire 
when I got there ; Keenan lives next house, a couple of rods ; did 
not see Keenan go there ; no fire anywhere but in front room up- 
stairs ; had been there about half an hour before got bod}7 out; the 
house was built in ordinary style. 11 
Re-direct.— The only fire was in the back portion, and flames there 
at the time ; the studding and lathing was ablaze. 
TESTIMONY OF ABRAM WHITING. 
Reside on Plain street, but lived about eighty rods from Mrs. 
Freeze’s house at time of fire ; about six o’clock that morning, saw 
a fog rising from Mrs. Freeze’s house ; went into the road and could 
not see it, so went back and ate breakfast; started for work, when 
I heard some one cry that Mrs. Freeze’s house was afire ; run that 
way, and overtook George Westcott; when we got to the house, 
found Keenan, McCarthy, and some others there ; the front door 
was locked, so we went to the back door, and went in ; five or six 
went in together; the back door was shut, but not locked ; shed 
door was open ; looked into the bedroom on the first floor, but saw 
no one, and then went upstairs; found smoke very thick; went 
down and got some water, and others pushed open a door, but could 
not get in, the smoke was so thick ; then we got some ladders, and 
McCarthy and I looked in through the chamber window ; saw the 
two lower limbs of a body on the bed, and they dropped to the 
floor while we wrere looking in; could see the fire, which was 
mostly in the partition near the bed ; saw a pile of charred clothing 
on the body ; thought if we could get an axe, could get the bod}*- 
out; finally, got some rails and pushed the bod}' along, until it fell 
to the ground ; took it out and carried it into the garden ; was there 
while the doctors examined it; noticed cuts on the throat when get- 
ting the body on to the board ; Drs. Allen and Mead were there, 
and some 400 or 500 persons during the time. 
I work at the railroad machine shop ; did not know Phair, never 
saw him. The house below was clear of smoke ; did not notice an}r 
wearing apparel below ; stayed there until the house burned down. 
The first smoke I saw came from the roof near the chimney ; on the 
side of the house where the body was found ; thought at first it was 
fog arising from damp shingles ; don’t know of any open stovepipe 
hole it the house. It was about 6 o’clock when first saw fire ; about 
6,20 when saw it next. 
Cross-examination. Was in my door when I saw the fog; not 
foggy there very often ; clear mornings, generally ; have seen foggy 
mornings there, two or three, last summer; the sun was coming up 
when I first saw the fire ; would not have thought any more of it, 
if it had not broken out again ; there were three or fdur there when 
I got there ; Mr. Rourke’s little bo}' went around to the back door 
and found it open. I work in the railroad machine shop ; can walk 
there from the house in about twelve minutes, about one mile and 
a half; go on the railroad track from the corner of the fair ground. 
The foot of the bed had burned off when I saw it; the body lay on 
the wire netting. 
Re-direct. —The mother of the bo}' sent him around to the back 
door ; don’t know the boy’s name. 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES McCARTIIY. 
Reside on Forest street, east side, some 80 rods north of Mrs. 
Freeze’s house ; on morning of fire, about 6.20, saw smoke arising 12 
from Mrs. Freeze’s house ; ran over and cried fire as I passed Mr. 
Keenan’s ; went to the house and rang the bell; Pat Ronrke came 
next; tried the door and found it locked ; Mrs. Ronrke then sent 
her boy around to the back door; he returned and reported, 
and Whitney, Jordan, and myself went around and into the house ; 
went upstairs ; believe I was the first in the house ; found no smoke 
below only a little in the hall; saw Mrs. Freeze’s hat on the rack ; 
brought down carpet from upstairs ; could see under the smoke 
about a foot; no fire on the floor ; the furniture in the room seemed 
in order; then went downstairs and helped to take out furniture 
there ; went to get my ladder and put up to the window and saw 
body on the bed ; lower limbs fell to the floor; could not stay long 
for the heat; then went to help keep the fire from Mr. Keenan’s 
house. 
Did not know Phair ; saw him Thursday before the fire with Mrs. 
Freeze, in a carriage, go by my house going north ; the Saturday 
following met him at corner of Freight and Forest streets, going 
on Forest street south ; man with him turned off to eircus ground 
and Phair kept on towards Mrs. Freeze’s ; this was about seven 
o’clock ; never had any conversation with Phair 
Cross-examination. Did not know who the man was with 
Phair. 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. MATTHEWS. 
Was at the fire at Mrs, Freeze’s house about seven o’clock in 
the morning; they had just got the body out when I arrived ; re- 
mained there till noon and took charge of the goods under direction 
of Mr. Franklin Billings, selectman ; the goods had partly been 
carried out; watched the goods and helped pile them up until they 
were carried away ; saw the remains before the doctors got there ; 
noticed neck stabs and was there when the doctors came; all the 
doors on the lower portion of the house were taken off and carried 
aw a}’. Found a key in one of the lower doors ; took it out and have 
kept it since, (he produced the ke}r and it was put in as a part of 
the evidence) ; it is in the same condition as when found; the spot 
on the key was dry then and looked as it does now. Knew Phair 
when a boy and have seen him some since; never saw him with 
Mrs, Freeze. 
Cross-examination.—The top of the head of the body was 
smashed in; not burned off; the hole in the top looked as if 
smashed in ; took the key off the door next da}7 but one after the 
fire, at Mis. Davis’; know it was a door that came from the house 
as I saw them took from the hinges ; believe this was after the re- 
ward had been offered. 
Am fifteen years of age ; John Rourke is ray father; lived with 
him across the road from Mrs. Freeze’s at the time of the fire ; 
heard Mrs. McCarthy crying fire ; went over there and found Mr. 
and Mrs. Keenan there ; went around to the back door and found 
it unlocked ; came back and told them it was open ; did not know 
Phair; have seen him at Mrs. Freeze’s; the Thursday afternoon 
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK ROURKE. 13 
before the fire saw him take her to ride ; the next Saturday night 
I saw him going up town with her. 
Cross-examination. —Our house is opposite Mr. Keenan’s, whicli 
is a little this side of Mrs. Freeze’s. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN KEENAN. 
Lived next neighbor to Mrs. Freeze, on north side, about thirty 
feet from the house ; saw smoke coming out of the roof but did not 
think the house was on fire ; this was ten minutes or so past six ; 
five or ten minutes later Charley McCarthy came along and said 
Mrs. Freeze’s house was on fire; went over and tried the front 
door-bell, but it would not ring; sent the boy around to the back 
door ; he found the shed-door open and the kitchen-door unlocked ; 
we went in but could not see any fire ; went upstairs and the room 
where she slept we could not enter, because the smoke was so thick ; 
came down and got things out, and then saw my own house was in 
danger of burning and went over there; was slightly acquainted 
with Mrs. Freeze ; had never seen Phair there; am employed in 
the railroad yard ; away from home during the da}7. 
Cross-examination.—Have seen other men go to Mrs. Freeze’s 
frequently; never paid any attention as to who went there ; have 
seen them go late in the evenings ; frequently have foggy mornings 
there ; fog was rising all around that morning ; don’t know the size 
of the house; never was in the house till that morning; did not 
live there when it was built. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. WESTCOTT. 
Was at the fire; about 6.45 when I got there; two men there 
then. [The remainder of his testimony corroborates that of the 
other witnesses who were at the fire, and develops no new facts.] 
DORA A. WILSON 
was the next witness, who testified as follows : 
Lived from the sth of January last to the last day of March 
with Mrs. Freeze. There was a kitchen, bedroom, and parlor on 
the first floor ; upstairs a front chamber and back room, with closet 
off from front chamber; bed was in the south-east corner of the 
room ; clothes-press was over the hall; alcove in back part of front 
room and bed stood in that; this was her lodging-room. No one 
else was living with her but myself. She had a hatchet and kept it 
under the shed ; was familiar with all her goods ; she had no razor 
there ; she had a watch and chain and three rings ; one ring was a 
chased, the other a cameo, and the other I know nothing of; the 
chased ring she wore always, as she could not get it oflT; had about 
one hundred dollars with her generally ; the watch was gold with a 
chain attached; the chain was a long one with a cross on it that 
could be used as a Had a part of a shawl which she gave me ; 
it was whole when I went there and I cut it in two and took my 
half home to Yergennes ; a star on it near the middle was on her 
half; it was black with Paisle}r border (shawl produced here, in 
both parts). This is the shawl. She kept her watch in her second 
bureau drawer; she had a case, a rosewood stained dark. (The 14 
watch, chain, case, and rings, produced and indentified by witness 
as those formerly belonging to Mrs. Freeze.) When I left last 
March she had another shawl similar to another here produced. 
She had six teaspoons and three table-spoons, marked “A. E. 
Stover.” 
Cross-examined. Used to help Mrs. Freeze do her work and 
used to count her silver; never heard her mother say anything 
about it; I testified before she did at the inquest. The rings look 
like those she had; think I should know them as I have seen her 
wear them ; never saw a 113' like them ; no particular marks on 
them ; never saw any other watch like hers ; she spoke of having 
two diamonds out; she kept it in her second bureau drawer; did 
not keep it locked ; kept the case on the top of the bureau ; never 
noticed the number of the watch ; remember particular!}’ about the 
cross and key; never saw any other of the same kind; the watch 
being enamelled is noticeable on that account; saw it at the in- 
quest ; Mrs. Davis, Mary Delphy, Mrs. Keenan, Mr. Thornton, 
Mr. Field, and Mr. Crawford were present; did not hear them sa}T 
anything about it; Mrs. Davis had never noticed the diamonds. 
Mr. Thornton came to Vergennes and told me the}’ had got the 
other half of the shawl and wanted my half; I gave it to him ; 
Mrs. Freeze kept the half with the spot on it, as she said I should 
wear mine more than she would hers ; Mary Delphy does not know 
of the shawl; Mrs. Freeze had a wine closet in her room ; never 
saw any wine there, but she called it a wine closet; was acquainted 
with her about a week before I went there; met her in Rutland 
while stopping with Mary Delphy ; gentlemen were not in the 
habit of calling at Mrs. Freeze’s ; saw some there, but no more than 
at other houses ; none stayed all night; went home very early, and 
were never allowed to stay long. 
of Rutland, testified: Am practicing physician and surgeon in Rut- 
land ; was called upon by Mr. Billings, the selectman, to examine 
the remains supposed to be those of Mrs. Freeze, and went in com- 
pany with Dr. Mead. We found remains 13’ing on a board, and at 
first the3r seemed but mere charcoal, but upon examination found 
some parts not entirely destroyed. The limbs were entirety gone 
excepting a portion of one thigh-bone attached to the pelvis. The 
bod37 generally was present, the head charred and skull gone ; ap- 
parently the skull-bone was broken since burned ; the forehead all 
gone down to the e3’e-brows ; fragments of roof still there ; the 
tough membrane had contracted and compressed the brain, while 
a rent was made through which a portion of the brain protruded ; 
rent was produced after death ; eyes completely burned out; nose 
considerabty so and jaws destixyed. The face was that of a fe- 
male ; no beard present; small month, oval face, hair so crisped 
that its character could not be determined. The neck was simply 
blackened; the whole body warm like cooked meat. As we raised 
the chin saw a long gash across the throat three or four inches, 
dividing windpipe ; the muscles of the neck and blood-vessels on 
the right side severed; along on the neck were four openings 
DR. CHARLES L. ALLEN, 15 
through the skin, apparent!}’ made by a sharp instrument; traced 
one that ran behind the bones of the neck, the others struck against 
the bones of the neck ; we traced for the purpose of finding whether 
the wounds were made before or after death; the wounds on the 
neck were produced before death, as there were no evidences of 
blackening, but there were spots of blood, showing they bled ; the 
large gash was made evidently before the fire, as the whole surface 
was black; on opening the chest and tracing the windpipe, the 
inner surface of it* was a pink color, simply moistened, whereas the 
whole inside would have been red, swollen, and wet if the wounds 
were produced before burning; persons’ lungs that inhale smoke 
would not present as healthy appearance as these did ; there was 
an entire absence of inflammation or burning; found the lungs col- 
lapsed and bloodless ; the heart also evidently drained of blood 
anterior to death; the blood-vessels had more or less blood in 
them, whereas fire cuts off the escape of blood necessarily and pre- 
vents blood from running ; there is no question but that the person 
died before burning ; the wound across the neck extending back to 
the bone showed marks of an instrument upon the bone ; the teeth 
as a mark of identity were noticed, ''and those present and absent 
were noted down ; one of the incisors on the upper jaw was gone 
and its place was taken by a false tooth ; there was a fracture 
through the jaw which broke in the setting; took it out and have 
it here ; has been in my possesion ever since until yesterday, when 
I showed it to Dr. Lawton. 
The large gash was sufficient to produce death ; the others would 
not; there were several other indications than absence of beard 
that showed the sex shoulders, breast, and waist. 
Cross-examination.—The large gash could not have been made 
by a razor; the others might have been ; the marks on the bone 
show they could not have been made by a razor ; blood flies con- 
siderably when such wound is made, and a person near would be 
apt to get blood upon him, although he might not. I examined the 
clothes of respondent some days after his arrest, very carefully, 
and found nothing that would indicate a suspicion of blood on 
them; they were light gray clothes, brought to me by N. S. 
Stearns; found a little spot on them, but it was not blood ; there 
was no evidence of ante-mortem wound upon the head ; if a person 
was lying on the left side of a bed, the blood would fly away from 
a person standing on the other side ; the bed was in a recess ; if in 
bed she must have been on the left side to have received the cuts 
made ; have been in the room several times. 
The question as to the reputation of the house was objected to 
by the counsel for the State, but allowed as admissible. 
Have heard sneers against the house, but nothing very definite ; 
never heard it called a house of prostitution; could not tell defi- 
nitely what I have heard; something to the effect that she made 
money fast without work. 
Re-direct. When visiting there professionally found the bed in 
the recess and the back of the bed against the partition, I think. 16 
DR. JOHN A. MEAD 
was the next witness called, and corroborated fully, bjT clear state- 
ments, the testimony of Dr. Allen. 
The instrument produced I think might have made the punctured 
wounds. This instrument looked like that used by physicians in 
making post-mortems. 
was recalled and testified: Bed took up the entire recess and set 
back against the wall. (Instrument produced.) Never saw any- 
thing like it there ; think I should have seen it if one had been 
there; she had no heavy paper-cutter or anything else answering 
this description. 
Cross-examination. Mrs. Freeze had no butcher-knife and no 
sharper knife than a case-knife; I was boarding there and did 
some work ; paid $5 a week for board. 
DORA A. WILSON 
DR. LEWIS T. LAWTON, 
of Rutland, was the last witness and testified : Am a dentist in 
Rutland ; had occasion to treed Mrs. Freeze during her lifetime ; 
she came to my office for work on her teeth; only work done for 
her was a plate made three months before her death. It was a 
front central tooth on the upper jaw (tooth and setting produced). 
This is the tooth and its setting. In putting up sets of teeth, no 
two dentists work alike, or in making plate of this kind ; in mak- 
ing such a plate I always clasp it around. 
Cross-examination. Presume likely there may be others that 
do it the same ; of course there is some similarity between them; 
all use same material. 
Re-direct. Have no doubt but that this is the tooth. 
The court then adjourned until 9 o’clock Wednesday morning. 
SECOND DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 
The testimony on behalf of the State in the case of John P. Phair, 
charged with the murder of Mrs. Anna Freeze on the 9th of June 
last in Rutland, was continued Wednesday. The court-room was 
well filled throughout the dajr. 
Reside inVergennes ; lived in Rutland last summer ; have known 
Phair a number of years ; knew Mrs. Freeze in her lifetime ; was 
with hSr and Phair twice ; can’t tell the times ; we were in the par- 
lor in her house; went there with Phair; he told me he had been 
there before I was there ; I was there with him between one and two 
weeks before the fire ; I went and came with him ; it was in fore part 
of the evening; saw him Sunday before the fire about noon ; he came 
up to my boarding-house to see me; we went to West Rutland 
alone in a team ; had it of George Richardson ; we got back about 
6; I left him at the Berwick Hotel; I paid for the team as he said 
he was short; I was boarding at Hoffneckle’s, on Centre street. 
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD T. BARNARD. 17 
Cross-examination. Came to Rutland in middle of May ; he 
told me before I came to Rutland that he was going to Boston ; he 
told me so a number of times after I came here ; I told him to get 
me a bottle of brandy if he went; he was in the habit of sleeping 
with me at m3' boarding-house. 
Reside on Forest street in Rutland ; knew Mrs. Freeze ; I saw 
her Monday before her death between 4 and 5 P.M. ; she passed 
my house going towards the village ; I had a talk with her as she 
stood by the gate and I stood on m3' doorstep; I knew the time 
because I was getting wood to make a fire to get supper for a 
boarder who was to come on the 5 o’clock train ; I saw her Friday 
in Perkins’ store ; she was buying things ; she had a hundred dol- 
lar bill, a fift3r dollar bill, and two or three twenties ; saw her go 
by Thursday in a carriage with a man. I did not see her Monday 
afternoon when she went back home ; she came b3T m3r house to get 
to the village ; my house is No. 33 ; used to see her pass frequently ; 
I was never at her house; she had a shawl on her arm Monda3T 
when I saw her at 1113- gate ; had seen her wear it frequently ; I 
know it was Monday; I was barefooted ; she spoke about it; I had 
a large number at my house through the circus. 
Cross-examination. —lt was Friday before her death that I saw 
her at Perkins’ store; I saw her have the money; she rolled the 
bills over her fingers ; we left the store together and she went 
towards her home ; I testified before Justice Everts at the inquest; 
said nothing there about the money ; the3' did not ask me ; I have 
spoken about it to m3' sister, not to an3Tbody else who had anything 
to do about this case ; I spoke to her about her having such a sura of 
money about her ; have had about 16 boarders through the summer ; 
the3' were men emplo3red on the railroad. 
TESTIMONY OF EMELINE HARDY. 
Reside in Rutland, on Elm street; Mrs. Freeze wasnty daughter ; 
I last saw her the Thursday before her death at the depot; she was 
there with relatives and they were going away ; they came on Mon- 
day and I went down there in the afternoon and also on Tuesda}’; 
her cousin staid with her and her aunt with me ; it was a mother 
and daughter; her name before she married Freeze was Stover; 
I have seen her new shawl twice; saw it when she came to myT 
house on Wednesday, also when I saw her at the depot; I examined 
the shawl and we talked about it; I know she had an opera-glass ; 
we spent considerable time in looking through it; the first time I 
saw it was when I was down there with relatives; I had the glass 
in m3' hands ; put the glass in the case and laid it on the bureau. 
(Shawl produced). I should say that was the same shawl. (Opera- 
glass produced). That is the same thing she had and that I looked 
through ; she fixed it for me to look through ; I had never looked 
through one before ; I knew her wmtch ; she had had it some time. 
(Watch and chain produced). This is her watch, I know ; she had 
a case to it similar to the one produced. 
Cross-examination. Mr. Freeze died in 1867; he had a razor 
TESTIMONY OF MRS. CATHARINE DAYIS. 18 
and I have it in my house ; I don’t know how I came by it unless 
it was Freeze’s ; I am one of the heirs of Mrs. Freeze’s estate ; it 
looks like the shawl and opera-glass which belonged to her ; she 
always kept the watch in her possession as far as I know ; I first 
saw the key about a year ago ; she got the chain since she got the 
watch ; the key is in the cross ; I never saw one like it before ; I 
saw this so many times that I knew it; am 65 years old. 
Live in Rutland ; work at Mansfield & Stimson’s ; Phair worked 
there with me in the same room ; worked on the same job ; I was 
twitting him of riding out with Mrs. Freeze; he told me how rich 
she dressed and how stylish she was, and what a little Dolly Var- 
den she was, etc. ; saw him at the circus with her and met him 
going to her house once ; never spoke of her money ; only her 
good clothes and jewelry ; Friday evening before the fire was the 
last time he worked ; last evening I saw him was circus-evening, 
Saturday ; saw the fire but didn’t go to it; Phair said he was not 
going to work at the business longer ; seemed to tire him to wait 
till six o’clock; said he was going into other business. 
Cross-examination. —He said he did not like to work; never 
saw a man dislike to work as much as he did ; told him he ought 
to be ashamed to ride out with Mrs, Freeze, because I should not 
want to ride with her in daylight or dark ; she had a bad name and 
the reputation of a prostitute ; have known her about nine 
years ; Phair did not work circus-day ; saw nothing of him until 
evening; he didn’t say what other kind of business he was going 
into ; the shop was open that day ; don’t remember how many 
worked ; some went to the circus. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN FOLEY. 
TESTIMONY OF BESSIE GAUGHAN. 
Live in Nebraska ; worked at the Berwick House the last sum- 
mer ; knew Phair; he boarded there; was table girl; was at the 
circus in June last and saw Phair there ; he had a lady with him, 
but could not say who she was ; never saw her before ; had nothing 
to do with Phair’s room or bed. 
TESTIMONY OF MARGARET BARRY. 
Live at Berwick House, and was there in June last; knew Phair 
and saw him at the circus ; am dining-room girl; had a lady with 
him ; did not know her; spoke with her but not introduced ; small 
person ; couldn’t say how she wore her hair, and don’t remember 
how she looked. 
Cross-examination. Went home Sunday evening after circus, 
after supper, and did not come back till Monday morning. 
TESTIMONY OF WM. H. PRESTON. 
Live in Rutland ; am baggage-master on R. & B. Railroad ; on 3 
and 4 mixed accommodations out of here at 4.30 A.M., for 
Bellows Falls ; remember burning of Mrs. Freeze’s house ; am ac- 
quainted with John P. Phair; have known him for years ; he went 
on my train to Boston that morning; saw him five minutes before 19 
starting; he came up to train and said he was going down on train 
that morning ; then saw him when we got to Summit; he came into 
baggage-car and stayed till we got to Ludlow; talked on railway 
affairs ; saw him at Bellows Falls and conversed with him ; saw 
him next at Keene ; he was on platform ; next saw him at or near 
West Fitchburg ; last 1 saw of him on trip ; next saw him in court- 
house at examination after his arrest. He was dressed in light- 
colored suit, light felt hat and black band ; he is a cousin of 
mine. 
Cross-examination. Rode from Summit to near Ludlow with 
me ; noticed nothing unusual in his appearance ; a week or ten days 
before he spoke of going down country; said he w'as working at 
heavy shafting, and said he was going to the screw factory ; talk 
was at the Berwick House ; time I saw him at depot is mere esti- 
mate ; takes five minutes to sort my papers, and he came up about 
that time. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN WILSON. 
Was railroading in June last on Nos. 3 and 24 ; mixed train out 
and accomodation back; went out on that train but was not 
working on it that morning; went from Main down through Centre 
street to Berwick House; a man came out and spoke of train time ; 
spoke of Preston, and talked freely all the way to the depot; think 
he had a satchel, but wouldn’t be certain ; it was about ten minutes 
to four when 1 got to the Berwick ; he stepped down from the steps 
and spoke to me ; I had my lantern and dinner-pail; did not notice 
him again ; he turned and went into the gentlemen’s room at the 
depot; that was the morning of the fire, as I went right over to the 
scene when I got back from Ludlow ; the man had a moustache, 
goatee, wore light clothes and hat with black band. (Prisoner 
identified.) 
Cross-examination. I walked down from Berwick House with 
him ; saw nothing unusual in his appearance. 
TESTIMONY OF A. R. HOWARD. 
Reside in Rutland ; in June last was in restaurant in depot; 
remember the day that Mrs. Freeze’s house burned, but cannot the 
day of week and month ; was there before the 4.30 train left that 
morning; did not know John P. Phair at that time ; I could not 
tell whether he was there that morning by seeing him since ; a man 
came in and sat down by the cigar case and ordered steak ; said 
he did not think he had time to wait for steak, but a man on the 
Rensselaer and Saratoga Road setting near said he had plenty of 
time ; so he ate the steak, paid for it and went out; should not 
have noticed it afterwards had not my attention been called to it; 
prisoner looks like the man ; could not say positively that he was 
the man ; he had on felt hat, I think, and business coat; he came 
in there about ten minutes or quarter past four. 
Cross-exuviination. —He ate his breakfast where I had oppor- 
tunity to see him ; don’t know how many others took breakfast 
with him ; Mr. Moon, the Rensselaer and Saratoga baggage-mas- 
ter who was with him, is in town. 20 
Knew Mrs. Freeze in her lifetime ; did not know Phair by sight 
before her death ; Monday afternoon before her death saw her for 
the last time ; she went past my store ; what called my attention 
to it was that Pat Kelly spoke of her being at the circus ; she went 
up street; did not see her return ; was at the scene of the fire about 
10 o’clock ; it had burned down when I got there ; have had some- 
thing to do in looking up this case ; I took Phair down to Nichols 
gallery and had photograph taken ; that was the 11th of June ; N. 
S. Stearns was with me ; we tried to get the number of watch next 
day before going to Boston ; understood that it had been fixed at 
Marshall & Cady’s ; boy could not find it but promised to send it 
to us at Boston ; we left for Boston on the 12th, at 4.30 in the 
morning ; we went to find property belonging to Mrs. Freeze ; 
went first to chief of police, and next day Mr. Gould, superin- 
tendent, went with us to pawnbrokers ; in meantime had got num- 
ber of watch ; went to a number of pawnbrokers ; finally got to 
Mr. Abraham’s (watch and chain produced) ; this was found 
there; number of watch corresponded to the number that had been 
given ; think also maker’s name ; watch was in the case ; this one 
produced is the one I think ; broker’s office of Abraham was on 
Salem street; ascertained of Mr. Abraham where claimed to have 
stopped ; went to Adams House that same day ; Mr. Stearns and 
son went with me ; Stearns’ son since died ; found a half shawl at 
the Adams House ; got it of the clerk ; think his name was Dono- 
van (shawl produced) ; this is the half shawl found there ; identify it 
by a spot on it; kept shawl with us and brought it home ; sought for 
the duplicate and found it at Vergennes of Dora Wilson, the woman 
who formerly lived with Mrs. Freeze ; made a further effort in Bos- 
ton after finding the watch and shawl; went again about a week 
afterwards ; Mr. Stearns went with me to look for further property ; 
found a Paisley shawl and opera-glass at J. G. Pierce’s, 25 Howard 
street; don’t remember of the day of month in which we found 
them (opera-glass and shawl produced) ; those are the same as 
found there by us ; we brought them home with us ; went to Boston 
a third time ; three weeks after first going ; got three rings this 
time at Samuel Elhrich, on Washington street (rings produced) ; 
those are the rings ; I brought them home with me ; found no other 
property ; thought I had seen the shawl before when I saw it at 
Boston ; first saw Phair after his arrest on the 11th of June. 
Cross-examination. Don’t recollect that any one said to Phair 
that it would be better for him if he would tell the whole thing. 
Re-direct. Told us he went to Providence to hire out in the 
screw factory ; did not see any of the proprietors, but saw one of 
employes, who said business was dull and so he did not apply ; 
some one asked him where he got his money and he said he bor- 
rowed the money, S2O, of an apple-tree man ; Stearns asked him 
the fare to Providence, and he said $3.25 each way ; don’t recol- 
lect of his saying anything about stopping in Boston ; said he was 
going to Vergennes ; he had bought a ticket to Vergennes ; said he 
expected to make some payments on property at Elizabethtown, 
TESTIMONY OF J. C. THORNTON. 21 
N.J.; he said he had fixed on an early day to go there; don’t 
know the amount he was to pay; he said he had been at Mrs, 
Freeze’s; said he first learned of the murder when Crawford 
arrested him ; Stearns then asked him if a paper was not shown 
him ; then he corrected himself and said he had made a mistake ; 
the printer had shown him a paper on the train before that; said 
he borrowed the money a week or so before ; I saw them at a cir- 
cus together; don’t know as I had an}r conversation with him as 
to the contents of his valise. 
Cross-examination. —We took him down to have a photograph 
taken, 11th of June ; took his photograph with us to Boston ; got 
there at 3 P.M. ; we went to the chief of police first; told our busi- 
ness and of the murder; showed the photograph to the chief of 
police; told him what we thought was necessary. He gave us 
Mr. Gould to look the matter up, and started out the next morn- 
ing ; showed Mr. Abraham the photograph after he had described 
the man; told him of the case ; think we did not tell him of the 
reward ; will swear I did not; Mr. Stearns and son were with me ; 
am interested in this reward ; don’t know how many are interested 
in the reward ; found the shawl and opera-glass on the second 
trip ; don’t recollect whether Mr. Gould was with us or not; about 
three weeks after the first trip made efforts to find the money, and 
went to the express office and found one package going to Eliza- 
bethtown, N.J., and I traced it, but nothing concerning Phair; 
had several talks with Phair, in jail and elsewhere; I have talked 
with him in his cell on different occasions ; can’t say when I had 
such talks; don’t know as I have said to him that it would be 
better for him to tell the whole story ; tried to find out all I could 
but held out no inducements ; told me of his trip to Boston and 
from the Providence depot; he said that Mr. Stewart rode with him 
to the Providence depot; he said that the fare to Providence was 
$3.25 ; Stearns asked him if it was that each way, and he said 
yes ; I swear that I remember he said so ; said he was going to 
Yergennes ; said he was going to make a payment at Elizabeth- 
town, N.J,; did not ask him how he expected to pay it; knew 
what money they found on him when arrested ; he said he was first 
informed of the murder by Crawford, and then corrected himself 
and said a printer showed him a paper with an item about it; it 
was raining at the circus, but don’t remember it Sunday ; think we 
had half-a-dozen each of photographs taken Mr. Stearns and 
myself; gave some of them away and have got some of them ; left 
one at Boston and had one with us whenever we went there. 
Re-direct. Think Stearns was asking how he made out his 
money, and reckoning up how much he had spent. He persisted 
in wagon that he heard of murder of Crawford. After we had 
talked so as to make sure his mind was clear on the subject, 
Stearns then asked if the man did not give him a paper concern- 
ing it, and he then said yes ; that he had made a mistake. 
TESTIMONY OF N. S. STEARNS. 
Reside in Rutland ; have interested myself in the investigation 
of the matter now on trial; was at the fire soon after the remains 22 
were taken out of the fire with Sheriff Field ; was acquainted with 
Mrs. Freeze, and don’t know as I had seen her for some days 
before her death ; knew Phair by sight; hearing some remarks of 
suspicion against Phair, I first went to Vergennes the next day 
after the fire, and returned home the next evening ; parties at the 
depot told me they were going to take the train south, and re- 
turned at 1.40 with the prisoner; met them at the depot and went 
with them to Berwick House, and from there to jail; had a con- 
versation with prisoner in presence of Crawford, Matthews, and 
Von Nieda, and the clerk at the Berwick ; was present when the 
baggage was searched ; it was done at the Berwick House ; he 
had a black valise, and in it were two boxes of collars, pair of 
suspenders, necktie, shirt, pair of stockings and two bottles la- 
belled brandy ; the one produced is the same valise; the shirt he 
claimed he brought with him from Vergennes ; it had not been 
worn ; couldn’t tell the name of the man he purchased it of; he 
said he had been to Providence ; from Boston to Providence and 
returned same night; went there to apply for work; inquired if 
he had made application for work; he said he did not, that busi- 
ness was dull and manufacturers were turning off help, and he 
did not apply ; his present work was heavy, and he wanted lighter 
work ; undertook to locate his stopping-place in Providence ; said 
he took his meals at a restaurant and stayed at a lodging-house, and 
said what direction he went from the depot; went 
down the street, and the restaurant was on the left side of the 
street; he described it somewhat, and referred to the circumstance 
of his presenting a fifty-cent scrip, which the clerk refused at first 
to accept, but finally accepted it; the lodging-house had a blue 
sign and white letters, “ Board and Lodging.” In regard to ex- 
penses he was inquired of where he got his money to make the 
trip ; he said he borrowed S2O of Mason, dealer in apple-trees ; 
inquired of as to the fare from Boston to Providence ; he said 
$3.25; said the same fare back to Boston; then asked if that 
included to Vergennes in the $5.25 from Boston to Rutland ; he 
said it was some additional; in figuring up, with his account of 
himself, the money he had spent, it exceeded the S2O. He said 
he was with Mrs. Freeze at the circus Saturday night previous; 
said in answer that night that he first heard of the murder the 
night Crawford arrested him ; next day, in company with Thorn- 
ton and Perkins, took him to a photograph gallery ; I asked him 
the third time about hearing of the murder, and then asked him 
if he did not read of it in the Boston Journal given him on the 
train ; said 3ms, he had forgotten it. 
The Court then suspended for dinner, and at two o’clock Mr. 
Stearns continued his testimony^: 
Phair said from the time he was at the Berwick House, Sunday 
evening, when he plajrnd the accordcon to the girls, he went out 
on the street and went to bed at nine o’clock at the Berwick, and 
took the morning train for Brandon to the circus ; sta}Ted there 
during the day, and sta}Ted at the Brandon House to supper ; was 
acquainted with Mr. Deming, the proprietor ; returned at midnight, 
and that Oliver J. Cain was on the train coming down, but didn’t 23 
speak to him ; stayed at the Berwick over night and took the morn- 
ing train for Boston ; claimed that he should have gone right 
along to Boston, but stopped for his baggage at the Berwick; he 
said he stayed at the Berwick in the room he usually occupied ; this 
conversation occurred the night of his arrest and also next day ; 
there were present that night, Matthews, Crawford, and one or two 
others at the Berwick; next day made the same statement; was 
present when the baggage was examined, and have stated what it 
contained ; he had a trunk which I examined in the room next day ; 
found shirts, stockings, razor-case and shaving-cup, but no razor ; 
there was 55.65 found in his vest pocket when searched ; had no 
wallet or purse ; I went to Providence and followed indications 
described by him as places where he said he stayed while there ; had 
James O. Swan, a detective there, to assist me ; were not able to 
find the boarding-house represented by him as the place where he 
stayed ; we went to the saloons and lodging-houses in the vicinity 
he described, and could find nothing as he described in that 
vicinity ; I went through that vicinity and could find no sign as he 
described there ; Swan was in company with me. 
Went to Boston on the 12th of June, on 4.30 A.M. train, and 
arrived there about 2 P.M. ; Mr. Thornton went with me; we 
went in pursuit of property described to us as being Mrs. Freeze’s 
property as liable to be carried away; got a description of watch, 
dresses, shawl, jewelry, etc.; Saturday afternoon found watch at 
18 Salem street, in possession of Mr. Abraham, broker; chain, 
watch and case entire (produced watch, chain, and case). This is 
the property found ; it has been in ray possession most of the time ; 
has been locked up in the safe in the post-office in a valise some of 
the time; learned from whom he obtained the watch; learned 
where the party from whom he got it claimed to be stopping; 
went then to Adams House; found a shawl there (produced 
shawl) ; that is the shawl we got at the Adams House of the clerk, 
John Donovan, Jr. ; shawl has been in my possession since ; after- 
wards found a shawl and opera-glass at James G. Pierce’s, 25 
Washington street (shawl and opera-glass produced) ; these are 
the articles we found at Mr. Pierce’s ; this was the next week 
Tuesday, after the fire ; afterwards found three rings at pawn- 
broker’s shop on Washington street (rings produced) ; those are 
the same rings ; at S. Ehrlich’s shop ; rings have been in my pos- 
session since that time; asked Mr. Phair at the jail to write his 
name on paper; he did so; he then wrote “E. F. Smith, St. 
Albans ” (writing produced) ; that was wrote b}’ Phair in my 
presence. 
Cross-examination.—The store of Ehrlich was a pawnbroker’s 
shop ; don’t know what nationality, but was a foreigner; Pierce’s 
was a pawn shop and second-hand clothing store ; Abraham’s was 
a pawnbroker’s shop ; think Abraham was a Jew ; don’t know the 
number of inhabitants in Providence ; think it is more than 5,000 ; 
may be more than 100,000 ; think there is a screw company ; got 
the description of lodging-house first in Providence and afterwards 
of Phair; have been at Providence at three different times; 
searched for those places in the vicinity of the depot; Phair told 24 
the direction from the depot he took and also described the res- 
taurant where he took his meals; had a sign, blue with white let- 
ters, “ Board and Lodging ; ” think he said he bore off to left from 
the depot; back of the depot is a bay or body of water ; in front 
is business places ; told me this after I had been once to Provi- 
dence ; I came out on the side of the depot as we came in from 
Boston and passed out to the left; at subsequent talk with Phair I 
asked if he did not go to the right to find this saloon and lodging- 
house ; think he might have said about the body of water but don’t 
recollect it; he described the manner of going out the depot; 
found a large number of restaurants and lodging-houses in the 
vicinity ; not as often as every door; don’t know as he described 
the appearances of the cars ; I don’t know as I noticed the color 
of the cars; I went at 2 o’clock from Boston ; he said he went 
directly from the train which he arrived on in Boston and went to 
Providence depot; did not say that he left about five o’clock; do 
not know as he specified the time the train left; don’t know what 
time the next train left; he didn’t describe the Providence depot in 
Boston ; was at the jail frequently to talk with Phair ; he has not 
always talked freely to me about it; he was questioned about it 
before telling ; held out no inducement to him to make statements ; 
I asked him what statement he could make; 1 think I did not 
advise him to make any statement; found a shaving-cup in the 
room but could not tell whether in the trunk or on the table. Mr. 
Hotchkiss, Mr. Thornton, and perhaps others were with me when 
the search was made ; the shaving-case was in the bottom of the 
trunk, and a number of shirts, stockings, and old letters were 
there ; it was a medium size and not full of articles ; his clothes 
which were searched were worn by him to jail, and took them off 
that morning ; the suit was then taken next morning down to Dr. 
Allen’s office to be examined ; 1 was there and think I went with 
the person who took them down ; was present when he took them 
off; I examined them for spots, but found none; think he didn’t 
change his shirt that night; I examined it but found no spots on 
it; have acted as an officer somewhat; made out from his state- 
ment that he had spent $5.75 to Boston, $3.25 to Providence, and 
the same for return, $5.75 back to Rutland, with an addition to 
Yergennes of some, I don’t recollect what; I called it $3.25 each 
way from Boston to Providence in reckoning up how much he had 
spent; have been to jail at various times ; have not got others to go 
there to talk with him nor tried to get others ; don’t know as I have 
tried to get his friends to go there ; don’t know as I ever tried to 
get Mr. Barnard to go there ; am interested in the reward some- 
what ; did not hear Mr. Thornton’s cross-examination ; was not in 
the adjoining room at the time, but came in as he came out. 
Re-direct. —Stockings and box of collars found in the valise are 
the same as here produced ; got no papers from Phair ; from Mr. 
Pierce got a pawn-ticket or receipt (receipt produced) ; did not 
get any other receipts ; these letters were found in his trunk. 
Cross-examination. —Watch and chain, opera-glass, shawls, and 
rings were found by me ; never found ear-drops and pin ; searched 
for them as well as I could conveniently. 25 
LUCIUS COLLINS. 
Reside in Castleton ; hotel keeper of Luke Bomoseen House in 
Castleton ; have seen Mrs. Freeze at my house ; she was there on 
the 4th of June last with a man who registered his name as J. P. 
Phair ; they were there with a team ; went away right after supper ; 
did not pay his bill; said he did not expect to come so far, or 
something of that sort, or would pay the next time he came; I 
said all right and went back to my work (hotel register produced) ; 
I was there when he came, but don’t think I saw him when he 
came ; but think I saw him register from the fact of my mark of 
“T” and “1 horse” against his name; saw him in parlor just 
before tea; should say the prisoner was the man who registered 
himself as Phair; had seen him previously, at least that was my 
impression when called to the desk as he was leaving ; if I had 
hot thought so, I wouldn’t have let him off so easily. 
Reside in Boston, No. 1 Stoddart street; do business of cloth- 
ing cleaning and repairing and'pawnbroker’s shop at 25 Howard 
street. (Receipt of Pierce for pawn produced.) Was present 
when that was made ; name of E. F. Smith signed to it; shawl 
and opera-glass named on it; an agreement made between me and 
the person pawning the goods. (Read agreement.) Agreement 
copied into a book, ticket made according to law ; age and resi- 
dence given by party as, age 30, and residence St. Albans ; goods 
taken care of by clerk. (Shawl and opera-glass produced.) 
Shawl same general description as this; couldn’t swear to it; 
should say the same opera-glass by the coloring worn off around 
the edges and general appearance ; not present when they went 
out of my store ; clerk and boy were present when goods were 
pawned, also a man named Livingston, an acquaintance of mine ; 
should say that the prisoner at the bar is the same person who 
pawned the goods ; have seen him since that transaction ; a con- 
versation took place between Mr. Livingston and myself in regard 
to the man after he left the store ; the man first came in and 
opened a valise ; took out the shawl and asked me to lend him $lO 
on the shawl; said a lady at the Adams House had not money 
enough to get home ; I told him I would give $5 ; then he took out 
a pair of opera glasses and said something about lending him SlO 
on those; I told him I could sell him as good a pair for $10; 
he said he would take them if they were as good as those ; I 
said I hadn’t them on sale ; I told him I would give $lO on the 
shawl and opera-glasses ; the agreement was made and receipt 
filled out; he then went away; the valise produced corresponds 
in size and general appearance with that had by the man ; a few 
minutes after, I went out on the corner of Howard and Court 
streets and met a man there, stopped and had a talk; while there 
this man who pawned the goods went past; he had his valise with 
him ; he was dressed in a gray suit with a Kossuth hat; hat simi- 
lar to the one now produced ; he wore a mustache and goatee ; 
looked him over when he came in as I generally do when I take 
TESTIMONY OF J. G. PIERCE. 26 
goods, as I sometimes get goods that are stolen ; my attention 
was called to him by the story he told, which I did not credit very 
much, from hearing so many of the same kind. 
Cross-examination. —My clerk filled out the receipt; he is now 
in the store on Tremont Row, Boston ; was very near to him when 
he was filling it out; was looking at the man and heard what he 
said ; I directed the clerk to fill it out; always have them copied 
and file them away ; book is open to inspection to any one ; hard to 
tell how many customers I have daily; sometimes fifty and some- 
times a dozen ; my attention was next called to the matter when 
the goods were taken away, the 17th or 18th of June; look over 
my pawn goods every week and notice those that are not re- 
deemed ; don’t always think of the particular man who pawned 
goods when looking them over ; a great many customers are known 
to them ; usually can identify a man ; don’t know as I ever was 
mistaken ; have been mistaken in twins ; see a great many men 
with mustache and goatee ; saw a photograph of the prisoner 
before coming to Rutland ; shown one the day when goods were 
shown me ; I gave a description of the man to them before the 
picture was shown ; seen a great many people who wore the same 
colored clothes ; could not have told the exact color of the hat 
afterwards ; opera-glasses look like those left with me ; think I 
could pick those out from a dozen others ; seen some that shape 
and all shapes ; in looking over pawn-tickets should remember men 
who I took goods of; was not informed of a reward being offered 
for prisoner; two weeks ago I first heard of it; no inducement 
offered for me to come up here except my expenses up here ; don’t 
know who spoke to me of the reward ; I was here September 14th 
and 17th ; could not tell from whom I heard of the reward ; might 
have heard some party talking about it; wras here and testified be- 
fore Justice Evarts at the inquest; Mr. Phair was present there; 
think Stearns and Thornton were together at the store when the 
photograph was shown to me ; don’t remember of ever being mis- 
taken as to identity ; have been to station-houses a good many 
times to identify men and have never made a mistake ; been in 
business a little more than five years ; Phair was at my place from 
ten to twelve minutes. 
MORRIS LIVINGSTON. 
Reside in Boston ; am dealer in clothes ; am acquainted with 
J. G. Pierce ; in June last was in Pierce’s store and witnessed the 
transaction between Pierce and a man calling himself E. F. Smith 
(pointed out prisoner as the man calling himself E. F. Smith) ; saw 
him come in with valise; said he wanted $lO on a shawl; Pierce 
said he would give him $5 ; then he hauled out opera-glasses, and 
Pierce said he would give him $lO on both; the ticket was made 
out and Smith left; went out soon after ; I glanced at him half-a- 
dozen times in store ; he said a lady wanted the money on the 
goods, was going away, and when she got to her residence she 
would send the money ; saw the man Smith here on the 24th of 
June; did not examine the opera-glasses, but did look at the 
shawl; this one produced looks like the shawl; opera-giasses look 27 
like those, but could not say they were the ones ; did not hear him 
say where he was stopping. 
Cross-examination. Not interested in the transactions between 
Pierce and the man called Smith ; nothing particular about it that 
called my attention ; did not see a photograph of him before I saw 
him here in jail; did not see him marching down to Town Hall 
between two officers; did not testify at all here before Justice 
Events ; Phair was brought out to me at jail. 
Re-direct. Saw Phair with Vogt at jail; we went up there with 
Stearns and Thornton ; first saw him at jail; we stayed outside un- 
til Phair and two or three with him came out of cell; he was set- 
ting down when I saw him. 
Cross-examination.— Two old men were there in office of the jail 
when I saw him. 
Re-direct. There were others there besides him. 
Cross-examination. None others besides the old men. 
ISAAC SMITH. 
Reside in Boston ; am acquainted with J. G. Pierce of Boston ; 
in June last my attention was called to a man passing by Mr. 
Pierce on corner of the street (prisoner identified as the man pass- 
ing) ; had a satchel with him ; was within a few feet of him ; took 
particular notice of him after he was pointed out to me. 
Cross-examination. I was standing on the corner of Howard 
and Court streets ;he was going down Court street; had a right- 
angle view of him, very near full in the face ; not square in the 
face ; my attention was next called to the matter on the 23d of 
June by Stearns and Thornton ; did not see a photograph at the 
time ; saw one in Rutland after I had been up to the jail with 
Stearns; I heard Mr. Pierce tell of the crime that had been com- 
mitted ; saw Pierce after he got back ; he asked if I recollected 
how the man looked that he pointed out to me ; can tell generally 
a man when my attention is particularly called to him the next 
time I see him ; the 25th of June I saw Phair in jail; may be mis- 
taken in such a case when two people look exactly alike ; nothing 
particular about the coat that I remember of, onl}7 a light colored 
coat; did not testify at the inquest; only before some one ; don’t 
know whether it was Justice Everts or not. 
MYER ABRAHAMS. 
Reside in Boston ; am a broker ; age 27 ; do business at 18 Salem 
street. (Watch, chain, and case produced.) Have seen this prop- 
erty ; tell by the number of the watch ; first saw it in Mr. Phair’s, 
the prisoner’s hands ; received it of him ; he came into the store 
and wanted to pawn a watch for S4O ; I told him I could not give 
him as much, but would give him S3O ; he said S3O would do him 
no good ; we had a talk a while, and I asked him where he was 
stopping and he told me at the Adams House ; said he had a sister 
and two children there who needed S4O to get home on ; finally, I 
thought as he looked honest and seemed sorry to part with the 
watch, I gave him $35 on it; afterwards the watch was delivered 
to officer Stearns, of Rutland, and he carried it away with him ; saw 28 
Stearns and Thornton the Saturday and Sunday I came to Rut- 
land ; saw Phair in jail on Sunday morning; the}r went into the 
jail, woke them up, and told them they had anew prisoner; I went 
in and recognized Phair as soon as I got in there ; there were five 
or six there I think ; it was about five o’clock in the afternoon 
when I received the watch. 
Cross-examination. I saw a photograph at Boston before I 
came here; the officers showed it to me, and told me of thd fire 
and murder ; can’t say whether any prisoners but Phair had light 
clothes on when I identified him ; can’t say how many customers I 
have on an average daily ; some days have a couple of dozen, and 
some days one or two ; he was to pay five cents on a dollar per 
week for use of the money ; it was on Saturday next after taking 
the watch, I think; could not say how many customers I had had 
in the meantime ; may be mistaken in cases of identity ; it is 
customary for pawnbrokers to give tickets to customers ; may 
have been in there fifteen minutes before he went away; thought 
he was an honest-looking man, and so let him have $35 ; could 
tell a man a wreek after he had pawned goods at my store; think I 
could tell them most anywhere ; take no description of the person 
on book ; take age and residence with the name ; this man said he 
was from St. Albans ; testified before Justice Evarts before. 
Reside in Boston, 502 Washington street; am a pawnbroker 
and jeweller; have been in business 13 years (rings produced); 
live on Northampton street now ; lived last summer at 52 Windsor 
street; these rings I have seen before ; I bought them last June, 
9th or 10th, in the forenoon, about 11 o’clock; bought them of a 
man ; the man is present (the prisoner identified) ; it was a pur- 
chase ; gave $5,1 think, for them ; merely weighed them, and paid 
him according to weight; had them a week or two, when officers 
came and got them, wrhen I gave them up to the officers of this 
town that came down there ; don’t remember the name, but should 
know them if I saw them ; the man gave no reason for selling 
them ; the Masonic ring he took off his finger, and showed it to 
me; the others he took out of his pocket; I offered $5 for the 
three, and he let me have them ; he was not there more than ten 
minutes ; next saw him here ; was up last summer, about a pionth 
after this transaction ; saw him at jail. 
Cross-examination.— Was taken up to jail; I suppose it was a 
jail; a stone building ; a few days after I bought them my atten- 
tion was called to the matter again ; was here in the month of 
July; some two or three wreeks before that my attention was 
called to it by two officers from this town and one from Boston ; 
did not remember the buying of them at first, and the second time 
a week after, by the same gentlemen and another officer, a detec- 
tive of Boston ; it is a common occurrence to buy rings almost 
every day ; I belong to the Masonic order; my attention was 
attracted when they spoke of the Masonic ring ; I put them right 
in with my rings, and have no private mark on them ; when they 
were recognized by the officers I gave them up ; they are the ones ; 
SAMUEL EHRLICH. 29 
a good many of the kind, but easily remembered ; if I were shown 
similar rings I suppose I could tell them ; the Masonic ring was 
worn off, and noticeable for that; a watchmaker in the neighbor- 
hood of mine picked them out, named Vogt. 
CHRISTIAN H. VOGT. 
Reside in Boston ; am watchmaker and jeweller; reside at No. 
3 LaGrange street; in month of June last had offered to me three 
rings for sale (rings produced) ; they are the same rings ; I did 
not buy them ; offered by a man ; that man is present (prisoner 
identified) ; I did not want them ; he was in my store about ten 
minutes ; he offered me first the Masonic ring ; then the chased one 
and the stone ring; he asked me to give $5 ; I told him I did not 
like to buy them, as that was not my business ; Mr. Stearns and 
another gentleman, and a detective, called on me for the rings; I 
went with them to Mr. Ehrlich, to the man whom I had sent Phair ; 
found the rings there, and picked them out from among his rings, 
about twelve days afterwards, I think; it was Wednesday when 
he offered me the rings, the 9th or 10th of June; it was the 23d 
of June the gentlemen called for them ; saw Phair on the 24th of 
June at the jail, with Livingston and Smith ; stayed only one day ; 
was here St. John’s day; when this man came to me, he didn’t say 
where he was stopping, nor where he lived. 
Cross-examination.— Had heard him described before coming 
to Rutland ; was not told of the crime until I came here ; they did 
not tell me about it the first time ; I recollected the circumstance 
at once, and went to Ehrlich ; he showed me the case, and I picked 
them out; the Masonic ring was worn, and size altered ;an un- 
common one ; poor soldering; the other was a very small one ; 
never saw any stone ring like it before. 
Re-direct. They asked me if I could recollect the man who 
offered me the rings ; I said yes. 
TESTIMONY OF JAMES DORAN. 
Reside in Boston age, 18 ; business, porter at Adams House ; 
was a porter there last June (register produced) ; it is a register 
of the Adams House; am acquainted with the rooms at the 
Adams house ; found a shawl in No. 61, folded up in a wardrobe ; 
brought it to the clerk, John Donovan ; he opened it, and then put 
it in the office (shawl produced) ; looks like the one folded up ; did 
not examine it in particular ; wardrobe stood on left hand side of 
room, standing up against a door leading into a larger room; 61 
was not occupied by ladies ; saw Mr. Stearns and Mr. Thornton 
when they came after the shawl, and saw them take it away ; the 
clerk I saw give it to them ; the same one found in No. 61 ; never 
saw the man called E. F. Smith at the Adams House. 
Cross-examination.—Didn’t unfold the shawl; only noticed a 
dark-colored shawl; the house is one where ladies and gentlemen 
both stop. 
The Court then adjourned till 9 o’clock the next day. 30 
THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 
The court-room was quite free from visitors in the morning, but 
in the afternoon it was crowded by an interested audience, as was 
the gallery, the latter mostly by ladies. Thirty-seven witnesses 
were examined, and a full report of their testimony is herewith 
given. 
JOHN DONOVAN, Jr. 
Reside in Boston ; was hotel clerk the past year of the Adams 
House, Boston, located at 371 Washington street; about half a 
mile from Providence depot or ten minutes’ walk ; about twice the 
distance from Fitchburg depot. (Adams House register pro- 
duced.) Was clerk of the house in June last; a man registered 
himself as E. F. Smith, St. Albans, Vt., and occupied No. 61 ; 
saw him later in the evening ; was there wrhen he arrived and saw 
him register ; that is the last name on the page ; he wrote the name 
himself; have seen the prisoner at the bar since that time, and 
seen him twice since coming to town this time ; he resembles 
the same man as registered under the name of E. F. Smith ; was 
here last summer and testified; he arrived about five o’clock, 
P.M., on June 9th, before tea; he remained overnight and occu- 
pied 61 ; saw him again about ten in the evening, coming in ; 
the porter, named James H. Doran, was porter at that time ; he 
brought me a shawl the next day, black and red color ; a half 
shawl; noticed some spots on its centre ; kept it in the office until 
Messrs. Stearns and Thornton came after it, when I gave it to Mr. 
Stearns, and they all went away together (shawl produced) ; 
should say this was the shawl; the man wore a light suit, gray in 
color; wore a light hat with dark band; had mustache and chin- 
whiskers ; medium size and rather stout; about 33 or 35 ; they 
came after the shawl about the 12th of June; my attention was 
first called to it at that time. 
Cross-examination. Saw the man’s photograph ; Mr. Stearns 
showed it to me ; the fire and murder were talked over when they 
came for the shawl; was here on the 12th or 13th of June last; 
saw Phair taken into the Town Hall between two officers ; had on 
light clothes then ; have seen him twice since I came this time ; 
I described the clothes to Stearns, before seeing the picture, as a 
light suit, light hat, and dark band ; suit was very common ; noth- 
ing remarkable about the man’s appearance ; swore before Justice 
Everts, that I would not swear it was the man ; I did not go to 
room No. 61, and don’t know whether he occupied it; only know it 
was assigned to him ; saw him passing that way later in the even- 
ing ; the house does a very fair business ; would not undertake to 
pick out all the guests who stopped there. 
Re-direct. Was shown the photograph of the man by Stearns ; 
I was asked if I remembered the party who occupied the room, 
and I said I did ; I described him to them ; I should say the pris- 
oner was the man but could not swear to it. 31 
MARTIN G. EVERTS. 
(Paper produced containing writing of Phair, bis own name and 
that of E. F. Smith). On Sunday morning after fire was called 
to jail, and in company with Messrs. Stearns and Thornton, and 
Judge Dunton as counsel for prisoner ; he was requested to write 
his name on a piece of paper; he did so, and then, at request, he 
wrote E. F. Smith, St. Albans, Vt.; this all was written in ray 
presence and in the presence of the others named ; I acted as pros- 
ecuting officer before magistrate before whom prisoner was held ; 
also acted as coroner, and took a good deal of evidence for preserva- 
tion ; was at the fire about eight o’clock ; had a consultation with 
others, and finally put a guard over the scene of the fire ; when 
examination commenced there was no track or trace made on 
ruins ; we made an examination of ruins next day by raking them 
over carefully (instrument produced) ; think it was Sunday, while 
riding b}r, my attention was called to another instrument that had 
been found ; Henry Balbridge found it and gave it to me ; I kept 
it until the Grand Jury sat, and then gave it to them ; I never saw 
such an instrument before, and have come to no satisfactory con- 
clusion about it; it looks like steel, and to have never had a han- 
dle ; it bears the name of the maker, “ Artin,” and “ Albany ” 
under it, are all that can be made out of the lettering; this is the 
same instrument that was found ; a part of a Saratoga trunk, a 
pair of scissors, remains of a lady’s pen-knife, a hatchet and other 
things were found in ruins; men were at work under main 
part of house at that time ; Mr. Franklin Billings has the hatchet, 
I think, and the other things ; saw a razor blade that was picked 
up, but don’t know who found it; nothing could be found of anjr 
value, like watches or jewelry, but some forks were found that 
seemed to be bound up in same way as when purchased. 
Cross-examination. I did not do much of working over the 
ruins as there were many there who had the implements ; did not 
see the man who found the razor blade to remember who it was, 
but was there when it was found. Isaac Smith and Morris Liv- 
ingston testified before me at the inquest. 
I was one of the selectmen of the town at the time of the fire ; 
got to the fire just as they took the body out; got Dr. Allen and 
Dr. Mead there, and stayed during their examination ; then got a 
man to watch the premises ; thought it necessary to have the ruins 
thoroughly examined ; next day, about noon, got some men and 
had the ruins examined ; in examining the ruins we found her 
shears, her scissors and five old forks ; also a hatchet and razor 
(produced hatchet and razor) ; when I got there the frame of the 
bed was on sleepers, but the body had been taken out; hatchet 
found very near where the bed came down ; found several keys to 
her trunks ; a very thorough examination was made and nothing 
of value was found; think Warren H. Smith found the hatchet, 
and that Mr. Perkins found the razor ; lived about half mile by the 
road from the building, but a quarter of a mile across the lots; 
FRANKLIN BILLINGS. 32 
woodshed was built after the house was built; no cellar under the 
house. 
Cross-examination.—l employed Mr. McCarthy to watch the 
ruins and Mr. Simeon Jones to stay while he went to his mealfe ; 
don’t know as I can tell that the hatchet was found under where 
the bed came down ; I engaged Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Steele, and 
others to help ; was there when Mr. Perkins found the hatchet and 
know we were raking under that spot at the time ; did not know 
there was a skeleton in the house when it burned ; we found 
parts of her skull in the ruins ; think from the house to the Berwick 
House by railroad track some more than half a mile ; it might be 
by way of street a mile ; usual course is by Forest street; should 
say not quite a mile ; did not take any measurement of the house ; 
think about 22 by 30 ; it stood on cedar posts, a balloon frame 
but well-finished ; was inside of the house once before it was 
burned but not a frequent visitor. 
Re-direct. —No bones found there that did not come from arms 
or lower limbs ; were found where the bed would come down. 
Cross-examination. The bones were burned almost to a coal; 
could tell what they were. 
MRS. NANCY KEENAN. 
Reside on Forest street, first house north of where Mrs. Freeze’s 
house was burned ; my husband is John Keenan ; lived there last 
June ; was acquainted with Mrs. Freeze ; she had been my neigh- 
bor about a year; she was quite frequently in my house; have 
occasionally been in her house ; she used my stove a good deal in 
warm weather to make tea ; was in her house Monday morning or 
day before the fire ; saw and spoke with her ; it was about 10 
o’clock in the forenoon ; that was the last time I saw her, or abput 
11 o’clock buying meat at a cart in front of her house ; was at 
her house frequently on Monday after water in her cistern ; saw no 
one about the premises that day, but heard some one talking in 
the house ; did not take particular notice of the voices ; nothing 
unusual in fact of hearing them there ; saw no one go there on 
Monday ; saw two gentlemen go to the door on Sunda}-, but don’t 
think they went in ; don’t know whether any one else was there 
when they called ; had heard some one talking about the house 
that day ; saw Mrs. Freeze the Thursday before starting from her 
house with a gentleman in a carriage ; did not notice him particu- 
larly and don’t think I should know him again ; don’t know where 
she went that day; did not hear anything unusual on Monday 
about the premises ; sleep on the south side of the house next to 
her house ; the first I heard of the fire was Mr. McCarthy rapping 
on the door; he said he had rung the bell but had heard no sound ; 
helped take out things downstairs, and there were a number there 
by that time ; I was there among the first; lower part of the 
house was perfectly orderly and quiet; went into the hall and saw 
Mrs. Freeze’s hat and shawl, on the hat-rack, that she was accus- 
tomed to wear ; there was a shed on the back part of the house ; 
the door was open when I went in ; had been in her room where 
she slept last winter when she was sick; her room was in the 33 
south-east corner, upstairs ; the bed stood in an alcove ; her room 
was to the left of the stairs and the alcove on the right of the 
room ; when I was in the room the bed stood head to the south ; 
should judge there was no spare room in the alcove ; Mrs. Freeze 
was sitting up in |an easy-chair at the time; don’t recollect the 
appearance of the man who was there on Thursday; know that 
Mrs. Fi’eeze had lately purchased a shawl; knew that she had got 
some opera-glasses recently. 
Cross-examination. I know there was some one trying to get 
into Mrs. Freeze’s house on Wednesday before the fire; did not 
see her make the trades of the shawl and opera-glasses; never saw 
a great many gentlemen go there; could not see her house from 
the north side of my house, where I usually stayed. 
WARREN H. SMITH. 
On Wednesday after the fire I went down to see the ruins, and 
was there before any examination was made ; helped to get some 
of the tools to examine; stationed myself where the remains of 
the bed were; raked over ashes which others threw out; was 
looking for watch or valuables ; was there about an hour; Mr. 
Perkins worked near me ; stayed till that was worked over; while 
there a good many pieces of bone were found ; some were skull- 
bones and some pieces of other bone, one a thigh-bone ; these 
were passed to Mr. Billings ; while examining we found a razor- 
blade ; I took it and passed it to Mr. Billings; this one produced 
has the appearance of the one ; it was found under where remains 
of bed were found ; forks were found while I was there ; nothing 
to indicate that any valuables were burned was found while I was 
there ; examination very careful for that purpose ; am an attorney ; 
am accustomed to examine handwriting. [Attention called to sig- 
natures on paper; evidence as an expert objected to, but evidence 
received.] Have no doubt that all the signatures were written by 
the same hand ; some points unmistakable ; the peculiarity of the 
letters are positive proof. Numerous features and traits of hand- 
writing were closely pointed out by witness. 
Cross-examination. —The hand is a little set; signature of man 
not accustomed to writing ; young men very apt to take up imita- 
tions ; it would be special effort to make those peculiarities by any 
of us; saw ruins of bed taken out of ruins; consisted of wire- 
springs ; saw some pieces of skull there. 
Reside in Rutland ; cashier of Baxter Bank ; have been cashier 
for ten years; have had some occasion to compare signatures in 
my own business and twice in court (signatures produced and 
examined by witness) ; I should say all were written by the same 
person ; same formation of letters and is the same signature ; the 
signature on receipt is written with a finer pen; same style of 
letter and same general appearances ; the word “ Smith” is almost 
precisely alike; the “ St. Albans ” looks alike in every instance 
and should say they were written by the same person ; all letters 
and all writing in the words “ Smith ” and “ St. Albans” are the 
GEORGE R. BOTTUM. 34 
same style and seem to be written by the same hand ; as result 
of my examination should say all writing produced was written by 
the same hafid. 
Cross-examination. I saw these signatures last evening and 
examined them partially ; have had doubts myself about signa- 
tures but don’t know as I have been seriously mistaken ; not usual 
for cashiers to be mistaken in signatures ; sometimes does happen ; 
have seen men write the same hand ; teacher and scholar frequently 
write similar ; this is a prominent hand ; the “ S’s ” are peculiar to 
the person who wrote them ; the turn of the “ S’s ” where he takes 
off" his pen is peculiar to the writer; should not say those sig- 
natures were intended as copies of each other; should say it was 
all an independent hand-writing. 
HENRY F. FIELD. 
Reside in Rutland ; am cashier of the Rutland County National 
Bank; been so since July, 1867 ; previously connected with Rut- 
land Bank and Brandon Bank, in the capacity of teller ; we deal 
very largely with signatures in our business, and are obliged to see 
a large number of them ; had frequent occasion to examine them in 
connection with our business. [Signatures produced and exam- 
ined by witness.] Think they were all written by the same hand ; 
I examined them previously at your request night before last. 
Cross-examination. Not in habit of making mistakes in hand- 
writing ; very likely mistakes in identity of hand-writing occur at 
times. 
SIDNEY W. ROWELL. 
Reside in Rutland ; am cashier of National Bank of Rutland ; 
have been teller and cashier since 1861 ; am examining signatures 
daily, and have been since I have been in the business. [Signa- 
tures produced and examined by witness.] All the writing seems 
to have the same general characteristics ; if Mr. E. F. Smith had an 
account at. our bank, and those two signatures were on separate 
checks, we would pay the checks ; should sa}'- the signature of John 
P. Phair was the same hand-writing as the others; notice the 
same “ S’s ” in “ Smith” and “ St. Albans ; ” they were made b}r 
the same hand. 
Cross-examination. Don’t know but the “S” is a common 
kind ; it has a character about it; rather fixed in its style ; bank 
cashiers sometimes make mistakes but don’t know as we ever paid 
a forged check. 
HENRY H. SMITH. 
Clerk of this court; over six }Tears ; prior to that time was deputy 
clerk for twelve years; my business has lead me to read many 
different hand-writings and have been called on to determine the 
genuineness of signatures before this Court and others. [Signa- 
tures produced and examined by witness.] My opinion is that all 
were written by the same hand. 
Cross-examination. —My opinion might be possibly a mistaken 
one ; not paying out money on signatures although money is paid 35 
out on signatures on ray order; my business is dealing with hand- 
writing all the time. 
Reside at Rutland ; am a printer at the Globe office ; so em- 
ployed in June last; recollect day of John P. Phair’s arrest, as I 
was on the train when it took place ; had come from Providence ; 
first saw Phair at Fitchburg, on the train ; did not know his name, 
but had seen him at Berwick House ; was a boarder there ; when at 
Worcester got hold of Boston Journal (paper produced) ; that is 
the paper I purchased ; from that I read ; had conversation with 
Phair ; showed him the paper, and pointed to him the item and 
read it to him ; then handed him the paper afterwards (witness 
was asked to read the item ; objected to ; evidence accepted ; item 
read by witness) ; Phair asked me whether the murderers had been 
found out; we talked of the matter some fifteen minutes ; he made 
the remark that the man ought to be hung for committing a deed 
like that; he played cards with three other gentlemen to Keene, 
N.H. ; there he got out and we had a little talk ; then separated 
until got to Bellows Falls, when we waited on platform for the train ; 
then got on to train together ; at Cuttingsville I occupied two or 
three seats ahead of him ; saw Crawford come on to train and 
arrest Phair ; he had occasion to offer me 50 cents at Keene ; think 
he took it out of a wallet; we spoke of the murder at Bellows 
Falls ; I saw some other money beside what he gave me ; he did 
not take that out; had no means of knowing how much there was 
in his wallet; don’t think he took the 50 cents out of the other 
money (there was a small roll of money in his wallet. 
Cross-examination. Was not dark when I first saw him, but 
was dark at Keene ; don’t think I would swear that he had a wallet, 
but it is my impression he did ; I came by way of Worcester from 
Providence ; cannot swear as to amount of money he had. 
Re-direct. Gave my testimony last summer before Justice 
Everts. 
Court then adjourned for dinner. 
J. W. VON NIEDA. 
CrawTord and myself arrested Phair at Cuttingsville on the mid- 
night train coming north on night of 10th ; brought him to Rutland 
and took him to jail from there ; when he was arrested we asked 
him where he had been ; said he had been to Providence; went 
Tuesday morning ; we informed him for what he was arrested ; he 
was much surprised to be arrested for that crime, as he was a 
friend of Mrs. Freeze ; went to circus with her a few nights before; 
a surprise to him that he should be accused of her murder ; said he 
had not heard of the murder when he was arrested ; he was stand- 
ing on the platform of car when we arrested him ; we searched him 
right away in the car; he had a small hand valise ; the one pro- 
duced is the one ; and an umbrella ; we did not examine his valise till 
we got to the Berwick House ; there found two boxes of collars, two 
or three pairs of socks, cravat, suspenders, and shirt, and two bot- 
tles of brandy ; the shirt was new and never worn ; white, fine shirt; 
C. H. MATTHEWS. 36 
said he bought that shirt at Mr. Haven’s, in Vergennes, before he 
came here; I took the shirt the next Saturday to Vergennes, and 
to Mr. Haven’s store, and submitted it to the examination of the 
clerks ; informed them as to what was claimed in regard to the 
shirt; they examined it; three of them; am acquainted at Ver- 
genness and know Mr. Haven’s son ; did not know the two clerks ; 
Mr. Crawford, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Faulkner, clerk of the Berwick, were 
present when the valise was examined ; found his clothes in it, 
letters, razor-case, lather-box also. 
Cross-examination. Shirt was a new one and had never been 
worn ; knew it by way it was done up; have seen them done up at 
laundry ; as a general thing the trade-mark is not left on it; shirt 
was left at Berwick House, and cannot be found now ; mark gave 
maker’s name ; don’t know what the name was ; marked with red 
letters ; knew it was not indelible ink ; don’t know whether it 
would wash out; aside from that it presented the appearance of 
those done up in a laundry. 
GEO. W. CRAWFORD. 
Arrested Mr. Phair, the prisoner, at Cuttingsville, on train com- 
ing from Boston ; went down on train ; Mr. C. H. Matthews went 
with me ; when we got to Cuttingsville I saw Mr. Phair through 
the window ; Matthews was ahead ; Phair’s back was towards me ; 
one hand on platform ; took him into the car and sat him down, 
and put a pair of handcuffs on him; Matthews came back, and I 
told him I got the man ; Phair asked what he arrested him for ; I 
asked him if he did not know of the murder, and he said he had 
not heard of it; he had a satchel or black bag ; similar to the one 
produced ; brought him to Rutland ; searched him at the Berwick 
House, and his boots ; found on him 55.65 in money and a ticket 
to Vergennes ; money was in right hand vest pocket; no wrallet 
found ; found a new shirt, two bottles of brandy, necktie, and a 
pair of socks in valise ; was white, starched, new ; he hadn’t worn 
it; he said he purchased it in Vergennes, of Haven; said he 
bought two and wore one ; don’t know what became of shirt; left 
valise with Matthews, and told him to take care of it. 
Cross-examination. Phair did not see me as I came up ; I got 
off my train and walked along to the other car; he did nqt pass by 
me ; I was ahead of the train he was on; he was on platform be- 
tween baggage car and passenger car; gave him no chance to run ; 
saw no attempts to run ; am sure Phair was on the platform ; did 
not notice how many cars on the train ; I got on right hand side of 
car; he appeared to be looking off; he asked me what he was 
arrested for; I told him Mrs. Freeze had been murdered, and he 
was arrested for murder-; he said that was the first he had heard of 
the murder ; am claiming the reward ; may be others claiming the 
reward ; don’t know how many have employed law}mrs to look up 
their interests ; have seen Phair very often when he was up at the 
inquest; had him here with blue clothes on when he came to plead ; 
always thought the light suit most suitable ; I told him I had been 
ordered to have him wear them. 37 
RICHARD H. PREBLE. 
Reside at Vergennes ; am clerk forF. K. Haven ; employed there 
for three years ; Mr. Matthews brought to the store last summer a 
shirt; I examined it and found Mr. Haven never had such a shirt 
for sale. 
Cross-examination. Remember of Phair’s buying some shirts 
at my store four or five months before ; bought two of me, and they 
wTere afterwards exchanged with another clerk; the other clerk is 
Charles Haven. 
ARTHUR C. LAMB. 
Reside in Yergennes; am clerk in F. K. Haven’s store; been 
there two years ; last summer Mr. Matthews brought a shirt there 
for examination ; I examined the shirt; Mr. Haven has not had 
any such shirt there on sale since I have been there. 
Cross-examination. Other clerks may have changed shirts with 
somebody. 
B. M. BAILEY. 
Reside in Rutland ; keep a jewelry store ; knew Mrs. Freeze in 
her lifetime ; repaired a watch for her at our store, and have a rec- 
ord of it; this is the book containing records; always take a 
record of the number of watch, name of maker, and the kind of 
watch ; entry made by Mr. Parmenter, now deceased; two entries 
made by him ; he was the watch repairer ; I did not do that busi- 
ness. (Entries objected to as evidence by the counsel for respon- 
dent, but accepted by the Court.) Part of Mr. P.’s business to 
make entries ; first entry: “Dec. 11, 1871, Mrs. Freeze, watch, 
gold anchor, Fries maker; cleaning screw and repairing jewel. No. 
56,376;” second entry: “Jan. 17, 1873, 56,376, Mrs. Freeze, 
gold anchor, Fries maker, cleaning and jewel, $2.00.” (Watch 
produced.) This is evidently the watch, corresponds in number, 
make, and general character. 
Cross-examination. Couldn’t swear to the identity of the watch 
independent of the record. 
Re-direct. Have taken that watch in my store from Mrs. 
Freeze ; recollect its general appearance ; looks like her chain as I 
saw it on the watch. 
Cross-examination. It looks like the watch and chain ; that’s 
all I care to swear to independent of record. 
BEN. K. CHASE. 
Reside in Rutland ; am a watchmaker and jeweller, and a dealer 
in jewelry. [Rings produced.] One ring has my cost mark on it; 
the figures were made by myself; it is an engraved band ring. 
Cross-examination. The mark on the ring is “ V. Z. K.” 
marked on the inside. 
Reside in Brandon ; proprietor of the Brandon House ; have the 
hotel register here; was keeper of the house on the Bth of June 
last; was at home myself; Barnum’s circus was there that day ; 
RILEY DEMING. 38 
don’t know the prisoner ; my patrons register generally, but on that 
day not one in twenty registered. 
CHARLES L. STIMPSON. 
Reside in Rutland ; am of the firm of Mansfield & Stimson ; the 
prisoner worked for me fourteen days in all; continued up to the 
sth of June ; Thursday, the 4th of June, he did not work ; no work 
was done after the sth; remember the burning of Mrs. Freeze’s 
house ; up to that time he had not been discharged as I knew of. 
Cross-examination.—Pay day had not come around at that 
time. 
lie-direct. He had given no notice of his quitting up to that 
time. 
Reside in Rutland ; in May and June last was proprietor of the 
Berwick House ; Phair boarded with me from the 20th or 21st of 
April up to his arrest; he had a room there ; No. 67, I believe ; he 
roomed alone ; last saw him on Sunday at noon, before the fire ; 
was called upon to examine his bed in his room the same day of 
his arrest; boarders’ beds were ordered to be changed on Saturday 
morning; his bed had the appearance of not being occupied since 
it was changed. 
Cross-examination. I don’t know when the bed was changed ; 
don’t know as I have ever examined a bed to know how much dif- 
ference it would make in a bed to have it slept in. 
Re-direct. Think it would make some difference in a bed to 
have it slept in three or four hours. 
Cross-examination. —lf sheets are folded and ironed, and have 
been slept in, the wrinkles would be more or less out. 
M. K. HOTCHKISS. 
Resided in Rutland in June last; in the month of June last I 
was night-clerk and bartender ; was acquainted with Phair ; was at 
the circus in Brandon ; went at 2.10 in the afternoon, and came 
back on midnight train; had been acquainted with him since the 
second or third night of his coming to the hotel; didn’t see Phair 
at Brandon that day ; went through the train coming home, the 
baggage car and two coaches ; quite a number of passengers, but 
the cars not crowded ; last saw Phair Sunday afternoon before the 
fire ; don’t know whether it was before supper or just after ; was 
present in his room after his arrest, and saw his bed ; should think 
the bed had not been slept in since it was changed. 
Cross-examination. Clothes on bed were turned back over foot- 
board ; don’t know who turned them, or how long they had been 
turned back ; could not see whether they were both clean, but did 
not look dirty, and both looked alike ; good many people there at 
Brandon that da}'; saw Burgess, Mike Leonard, and don’t re- 
member having conversation with any one on the train ; did not 
examine them as I went along; not claiming any of the reward ; I 
have heard that two of the officers say I was the first one who 
notified them of Phair ; hope to get some of the reward, and should 
not refuse it if given me. 
OLIVER J. CAIN. 39 
Re-direct. The train that night was on time; went to Berwick 
House and retired about 3.30 that morning, in the meantime was 
in the office of the hotel and in the bar once or twice ; saw nothing 
of Phair. 
Cross-examination. The bar is at the further end of the hall; 
should not see the boarders from there when they went up stairs. 
MARY COKELY. 
Reside at Berwick House, and was chambermaid there last June ; 
knew Phair; he roomed there ; his room was 67 ; I had care of his 
room ; changed clothes on his bed Friday before his arrest; atten- 
tion called to the bed on Tuesday after; examined it, and did not 
look to me as if it had been slept in, but some mussed on the out- 
side ; pillows didn’t look as if they had been slept on ; last made 
up bed Friday, I think ; but might have done so since, as had some 
help about that time, and can’t say positively. 
Cross-examination. I don’t remember when I saw Phair last; 
did not see Phair playing accordion Sunday evening, but heard 
him playing ; no one else had an accordion there to my knowledge ; 
good many people there during circus time ; good deal of work 
then ; always put one sheet every week. • 
MARY DELPHY. 
Reside in Rutland; knew Mrs. Freeze during her lifetime, and 
slightly acquainted with her; last saw her a week before her 
death ; knew she had purchased a new shawl; was in my house and 
had it on just a week before her death ; looked at the shawl (shawl 
produced) ; should think it was the same one; did not know of her 
having any opera-glasses (half shawl produced) ; seen one that 
looked like that same style. 
Cross-examination. —My house is No. 3 Willow street; she was 
at my house a week before she died ; then had a new shawl; would 
not swear this was the same shawl, only looks like it. 
CLARK F. RICHARDSON. 
Reside in Rutland ; proprietor of Berwick House ; last June kept 
a livery; was some acquainted with Phair then; also some ac- 
quainted with Mrs. Freeze ; last saw her before her death, about a 
week before; she was at my stable, and she must have had over 
$2OO in her wallet; could see two 50’s, a $lOO bill, and some 
twentys, also some other bills that were in another portion of the 
wallet; Phair had a team of me the Thursday before to go to Cas- 
tleton, and came back in the evening; didn’t pay for the team; 
spoke to me up at the jail about it and would see it paid, that he 
went farther than he intended —to Fairhaven ; next day after he 
returned he said he should have some money on the 15th and would 
pay me then. 
Cross-examination. Don’t recollect of his saying that he could 
pay me then if I said so; frequent thing for men to get trusted for 
teams. 40 
GEORGE WILLIS. 
Reside in Rutland ; tax-collector here ; knew Mrs. Freeze in her 
lifetime ; called on her some time in May, and saw her at her 
house ; saw her take a portmonnie and looked for some small bills ; 
saw some $3OO or $4OO in money ; she then took out another 
wallet containing more money. 
Cross-examination. Think this was about the middle of May ; 
did not count the money. 
EDGAR NELSON. 
Reside in Rutland ; business in June last was butchering ; run a 
cart and supplied Mrs. Freeze ; last time delivered some morning 
before fire ; was there myself between nine and ten o’clock ; paid 
for meat she had; did not see any money in particular. 
HENRY BALDRIDGE. 
Reside in Rutland; was at ruins of Mrs. Freeze’s house on Sun- 
day after it was burned ; found an instrument there near the cen- 
tre of the building; instrument produced I think is the one ; 
handed it to Mr. Everts. 
Business as bookkeeper for Thomas Ross, of Rutland, and was 
in that business last May and June; Phair worked for Mr. Ross 
from the 22d of April to May 19th; paid him, April 24th, $2 ; 
May 16th, $16.65 ; May 18th, $27.50, by check on the Rutland 
Bank. 
Cross-examined. Paid him in the whole $46.25. 
CORNELIUS H. FORBES. 
E. J. ORMSBEE. 
Examined by Justice M. G. Evarts. —ln respect to witness 
James Nolan, clerk of J. G. Pierce, the clerk could not appear 
with Mr. Pierce, and we were obliged to do without him, and have 
Mr. Pierce testify. 
This closed the testimony on the part of the State. The 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENCE 
was then commenced. The first witness called was 
Mrs. Freeze had a box there belonging to a physician ; never 
looked into it myself; never saw the trunk ; she had two or three 
in the lumber room ; common size, black; never saw the physician 
there. 
DORA A. WILSON. 
Know nothing of the physician being at Mrs. Freeze’s, only 
what she has told me ; never was at the house ; saw a coach go up by 
my house Tuesday night at 11.45 ; the hour by fact of waiting for 
company on sleeping train, and heard it go past; it went to- 
MRS. EMELINE HARDY. 41 
wards Mrs. Freeze’s; her house was about half a mile from my 
house ; in about half an hour heard it go back towards village. 
Cross-examination. Don’t know what coach or hack it was ; 
saw it, and it was a two-horse coach; when it went back did not 
see it, but supposed it was the same one ; nothing unusual for hack 
to go by at any time, night or day ; don’t know where the coach 
went. 
Was at work at the Berwick House last June ; knew Phair by 
sight; saw him Sunday night in his room playing, and I asked 
him to come out and play for us girls ; he came out and played 
for us until half-past nine, and then went to his room ; he played 
on an accordion. 
JOHANNA GLEASON. 
JOHN WILLIAMS. 
Am a barber ; last May and June my shop was under the Ber- 
wick House, until the slh of June ; knew Phair ; shaved him from 
the time he came until the sth of June. 
HENRY WILLIAMS. 
Am a barber; had a shop at Rutland over a year past, under 
the Bardwell House ; recollect shaving Phair the week before the 
fire, and the Saturday before, and then dressed his hair on Sun- 
day, at about 11.30; have been at Mrs. Freeze’s house; saw a 
razor there ; was there to sell her some hair goods ; she sent after 
me ; my attention was called to the razor by her saying something 
about it; saw a razor in a bureau drawer, where she pulled out 
some hair that she wanted colored ; saw a trunk there, on the right 
side of the stove; the name of a gentleman was on the trunk; 
did not notice any indication of the man’s business on the trunk ; 
it was a leather trunk, covered, and three straps on it; noticed it 
particularly, as the name on there was as large as ray hand; 
either Johnson or Wilson ; saw a razor there again, when I went 
there two weeks before the murder down stairs ; did some work for 
her, and took it there to see if it would suit her. 
M. A. HITCHCOCK. 
Reside in Rutland ; been here about seven years ; sell milk ; been 
in business about four years ; was somewhat acquainted with Mrs. 
Freeze ; was at her house selling milk the morning before it was 
burned ; was on her steps ; supplied her with milk; did not go into 
the house ; a dish was on the threshold of the door; left milk in 
that; heard some conversation inside; it seemed to be upstairs, 
between two gentlemen and a lady; recognized her voice, but did 
not the gentlemen’s voices ; was waiting for my boy to come up ; 
took it that they were angry by the conversation between them. 
[Conversation objected to by counsel for the State] ; heard the con- 
versation distinctly ; the parties were wrangling ; the blinds were 
closed, but don’t know whether the window was open or not. 
Cross-examination. This was Monday, about 9 o’clock, A.M. 42 
My husband and I went to Boston the Tuesday Mrs. Freeze’s 
house was burned; saw Phair in a hack in Boston, and rode in a 
hack with him from Fitchburg depot to Providence depot; no one 
else was in the hack that stopped there. 
Cross-examination. Never saw him before that time nor since ; 
think prisoner is the same man. 
MRS. LAURA I. STEWART. 
GEORGE W. STEWART. 
Went to Boston on Tuesday, the same day of the fire, with my 
wife ; saw Phair; he got in the hack at Fitchburg depot, and got 
out at the Providence depot. 
Cross-examination. Had not seen him since then until when 
this trial commenced ; knew him by the clothes more than anything 
else. 
Re-direct. Was in the hack fifteen or twenty minutes ; had a 
conversation once in calling attention to the old reservoir; did not 
ascertain where he was from. 
Cross-examination. Adams House is half or three-quarters of 
a mile to Providence depot; farther from there to Fitchburg depot. 
Re-direct. Presume I have made the remark of going with him 
in the hack; think that my attention was first called to matter by 
some one else saying that Phair said he rode with me ; that is the 
way I found it out. 
Am driver of hack ; been in business here for twelve or thirteen 
years ; was acquainted with Mrs. Freeze ; was in the habit of driv- 
ing men down to Mrs. Freeze’s, both night and day. 
PETER LAVIGNE. 
Recalled. Am a conductor on the Rutland division of the Cen- 
tral Vermont Railroad ; have been for the last seven years. 
GEORGE W. STEWART. 
GEORGE SARGENT. 
Reside in Rutland ; work in stable for Mr. Richardson ; am in barn 
most of the time ; have driven some ; have driven men down to 
Mrs. Freeze’s several times in the evening from 8 to 9 o’clock. 
The court then adjourned till 9 o’clock the next day. 
FOURTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 
Reside in Rutland ; drove by Mrs. Freeze’s house Tuesdaj’- morn- 
ing at 6.20 ; noticed the house ; saw no indication of fire ; heard 
alarm of fire after getting home; live about half a mile from 
there. 
WALTER C. LANDON. 43 
The State’s Attorney opened by referring to the fact of his stat- 
ing what he expected to prove before putting in his testimony. In 
looking back upon that statement of the case which justified the 
arraignment of the prisoner, he asked if the counsel for the State 
had not more than fulfilled the prediction and promise ; it was 
understood that this was a serious matter, not only for the prisoner 
but also for those who present this man for trial; they had en- 
deavored to be actuated by no undue zeal, but had seen to it that 
they kept within the line of their duty ; the charge was the most 
serious in the catalogue of crime. The case would be presented 
on the facts alone, unvarnished and not enlarged, and it was upon 
those facts he asked the jury to pass upon the guilt or the innocence 
of the prisoner at the bar. When he had presented the case and 
grouped together the evidence, the case as presented would be left 
with the jury for their decision. Their duty was as plain as was 
that of the counsel. No partisan zeal was required in a criminal 
case like this, but merely a presentment of facts in a fair and un- 
garbled manner. It devolved upon the State to convince the jury 
beyond a reasonable doubt. First, it was evident that a crime had 
been committed, and it was necessary for him to define the crime 
of murder. Still it would be if there were different degrees of 
murder to be raised in the case, but now it was only necessaiy to 
show that the life of a human being had been taken by malice 
aforethought. The indictment for murder had named the various 
ways by which the crime was committed, and it was only neces- 
sary to show that it was committed by one of these various ways. 
It was necessary for the State to show that the life of Mrs. Anna 
Freeze was taken, as the charge against the respondent was not 
for the murder of anybody else ; they must show that the body 
found at No. 92 Forest street was that of Mrs. Anna Freeze, and 
to show that Mrs. Anna Freeze came to her death by the hand of 
violence. Also, that John P. Phair is the man, and that by his 
hand her life was taken ; all these beyond a reasonable doubt the 
jury must be satisfied as reasonable and considerate men. It must 
be understood that the counsel of the State stood stripped of any 
sympathy. The jury would be appealed to, as is always the case, 
in language of sympathy, and the respondent held up to you in 
such terms. That was well in order to guard against injury, and 
beyond that tire jury should not go. It was known that he has a 
mother whose life would be crushed should her son be found 
guilty, and no one had more consideration than himself for the 
mother and sisters ; but this had nothing to do with their delibera- 
tions. They were only to try upon their oath the issues between 
the State and the prisoner, and not between the State and his 
father, mother, sisters, and brothers ; simply to try upon the evi- 
dence presented by the State. Evidence had been put into this 
case which claims that the prisoner was not the murderer ; that the 
victim was not as reputable as she should be, but had departed 
from the paths of chastity and rectitude. The Court would tell 
them, their own good sense would tell them, that that fact would not 
ARGUMENT OF E. J. ORMSBEE. 44 
relieve them of the responsibility in the matter. Their life is pro- 
tected by the same law from the hand of the assassin as were the 
best and purest in the land. That was one of the beauties of our 
government; the high or the low, the chaste and the degraded, all 
stand before the law on a level. Nothing could be asked in behalf 
of the prisoner because of the want of character pertaining to the 
victim who was claimed to have been murdered at his hands. 
In considering the testimony produced by the government, that 
of the defense which had been produced took not a feather’s weight 
from that produced by the State. 
Has a murder been committed? About twenty minutes past six 
a fire was discovered from the house of Mrs. Anna Freeze. You 
will remember the condition of things in the house as testified to, 
and so far as the testimony is concerned there was no contradic- 
tion of facts. We need not group the testimony, for it stands as 
so many facts proven and speaks to you as facts and stand uncon- 
tradicted. This shows that the house was found on fire, a smoth- 
ering, slow fire, when entered by Mrs. Keenan and others. How 
was it set? By the respondent laefore his departure at 4.30. The 
other side may ask how this can be possible. You will be asked 
how it could be, in words both loud and long. But you remember 
the condition of things there. There was no fire in the house ex- 
cept in that alcove, but there it had been burning a sufficient time 
to burn the flesh off, and the bones of the bod}7 of this unfortunate 
woman, so that they dropped before the bed fell. God only knew 
how long it had been burning. You could see only a little fire, 
but how kindled, how confined, how regulated, the Almighty and 
the prisoner only know. But we do know it had been burning 
long enough to burn the flesh upon the bones of that woman, roast- 
ing until the bones fell from the bed. There was time enough for 
that. They need not say it was not possible. If asked where the 
fire was kindled, how managed and kept, it is only necessary to 
say that it was burning until such work had been done that is 
known wras done. How and for what reason it was done, only God 
and the prisoner know. If there is anything mysterious about the 
case, it is in the manner of its accomplishment. Devils always 
leave their tracks behind them, and always leave trace of their foot- 
steps somewhere. It is evident that whoever committed the deed, 
that person piled upon that woman a quantity of bedding, and for 
what? That she might be burned up. But the very clothing pro- 
tected her, and gave you and me the evidence that a murder had 
been committed. Had not these precautions been taken, it may be 
safely said that the murder would have been protected from the 
public eye. 
This evidence is unmistakable, and would not be had it not been 
for this effort made by the murderer. You will be satisfied that the 
body was that of Anna Freeze. Is there any doubt about it? It 
cannot be. Fortunately, we have beyond all question that evidence 
which will satisfy you and the world. The body was found in the 
room and in the bed of Mrs. Anna Freeze, where she always lodged. 
Is there anybody missing from the rank and file of humanity? 
Yes. Who is it? Who has gone from our midst? It is Anna 45 
Freeze. Gone since the 9th of June. When those surgeons and 
physicians examined that body they found in the mouth of the 
woman that which is sufficient to justify the hanging of the best 
man in Vermont the left inciser of the upper jaw. We find from 
Dr. Lawton that it was a tooth which he set for Mrs. Freeze, and 
Dr. Allen says he took the tooth from her mouth. In this there is 
no possible doubt, and there is also no possible doubt of the iden- 
tification of the body. By the assistance of the physicians we are 
able to come before you with proof absolutely certain that she came 
to her death by loss of blood, and not by burning or suffocation. 
It is shown thaf an examination was made immediately after the 
burning, and wounds were found which of themselves would cause 
death ; the location was discovered, and the wounds made in that 
place were usually for the purpose of taking life, a wound from ear 
to ear. Doctors no doubt that the wounds were made before 
burning, and that gash itself shows that it was cut before burning, 
and no evidence would have been there had they have been punc- 
tured from falling from above. Further, they say an examination 
was made of the organs of the heart, lungs, and wind pipe, enabling 
them to say beyond a possibility that the body was dead before 
burning, and showing an entire drainage of blood, and the body 
became lifeless for want of blood, and the lungs were collapsed. 
Had death ensued from fire, the fire upon the surface dries up all 
escape of blood ; the same theory that no bleeding occurs from a 
burn. The windpipe showed there had been no inhaling of smoke, 
but the reverse. If we were not right or the doctors wrong, they 
would have flooded this Court with proof on that subject. They 
have attempted to prove nothing; therefore we are justified by all 
reason that our statements stand proved. If they were not true 
according to the testimony, they were susceptible of contradiction, 
and within reach of the attorneys, and they have not attempted it. 
It has been proved that death resulted from wounds, and from such 
wounds, as the indictment reads, the said Anna Freeze instantly 
died. 
The next step is the all-important one to the prosecution, and 
to respondent, and that is, having shown a murder has been com- 
mitted on the 9th day of June last, in Rutland, and that Anna 
Freeze was murdered, and died from wounds, and not from burn- 
ing, we now must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that John 
P. Phair took her life. If ever a set of circumstances pointed to 
and surrounded a man in any case, this is the case. There is no 
man among us that has got the nerve of this man. He laughs 
when others laugh, jokes when others joke, and this when 
arraigned at the bar for the crime of murder. If he did the deed 
he did it alone, unassisted and unseen save by the eye of the 
Almighty. Never was there a case more clearly shown, nor could 
it be any living mortal man than the one charged. Usual to try to 
show somebody else was seen in the vicinity, and to have been the 
person who done it. But no such attempt has been made here. 
What do we find in the evidence as pointing to this man? It is 
not necessary to state what each one has said, but only to mention 
those things we expect to prove. It will be admitted that Phair 46 
was acquainted with and a frequenter at the house of Mrs. Freeze. 
This is not denied, and cannot be questioned for a moment. He 
even admits it himself. Where is John P. Phair known to have 
been the last known of him prior to the murder? Thursday at 
Castleton with Mrs. Freeze, Saturday night at the circus with her, 
and on Sunday morning he is found coming from the direction of 
her house and passing Jno. Jordan’s place at about seven in the 
morning. It is a circumstance which we have a right to show 
tending to connect him as a visitor of the house, and in the habit 
of spending his nights there ; find him on intimate relations with 
this woman. He was not at work Saturday or Monday, and not 
at his lodgings from Saturday noon up to the time of the murder. 
"Where was he? That is the question for us to consider, and is 
well for this prisoner and his attorneys to answer. Where was he 
Sunday night, Monday, and Monday night? If he had been any- 
where on God’s footstool but in that house, they would have at- 
tempted to show it. They cannot escape your finding and 
believing John P. Phair was at Mrs. Freeze’s house Monday 
night. If he had been anywhere else they would have shown it. 
His story is that he went to Brandon to the circus on Monday, 
came back on the night train, retired at the Berwick House and 
stayed there till 4.30 A.M., when he went to Boston. Will that 
account do? Five thousand people from Rutland and Addison 
counties, where he has always lived, were there, and could not be 
have found a dozen men to come and swear where he was that day? 
He must stand charged of being in Mrs. Freeze’s house. He has 
made his own bed, chosen his own fate, and he must abide by it. 
We feel authorized in saying this, and he must have been there. 
If he had lodged with Barnard or any of his fellow-workmen, or 
even in the lowest dens of infamy, they would have brought parties 
here to tell you so. We might refer to the fact that Oliver J. 
Cain was at Brandon at the circus and came home in the same 
train, went to the same place from the same place as Phair claims 
he did, and did not see Phair. This evidence has its legitimate 
weight, and does not stand alone. We find that his bed was not 
occupied from Friday night until the murder. Will they ask you 
if a man could tell whether a bed had been slept in by appearance? 
Such a question is an insult to your intelligence. Yon remember 
what Mr. Hotchkiss said in the matter. Phair was there at Mrs. 
Freeze’s house from Sunday night until committing the deed; 
nobody saw him elsewhere ; so far we find him on terms with Mrs. 
Freeze which entitled him to be there night and day. Whether 
the house is reputable or otherwise, we find him there in season 
and out. We assume he was there and that it is his duty to 
show where he was. Especially so when we show that he trafficked 
in a foreign market the goods that belonged to her; important 
that he should show where he was when the deed was done. 
He had an opportunity to do this murder. Right here, when we 
show that the deed was committed and this man in a position to do 
it, we have taken a long stride in fixing responsibility upon the 
prisoner at the bar. Another fact is that it was not inconsistent with 
the man to do this deed. Are we charging him with anything he 47 
could not do? We are not permitted to show his history unless 
the}' put evidence in with regard to it. They have not done it. 
There is volumes in that fact to forever condemn and damn the 
man who is charged under such circumstances. Here is a man 
charged with a foul deed, and no man can they find to come and 
say the crime is inconsistent with the man, God have mercy on 
the soul that there stands before his fellow-men ! Such evidence 
is damning, both here and hereafter. It is not claimed but what 
his counsel have done all they could have done for their client, and 
had there been a man, woman, or child that they could have 
brought to show this they would have brought him from the ends 
of the earth. But this man belongs here, in our own Green Moun- 
tain State, ashamed as lam to say it. They could not go far 
before they found those who have known him from his crib to mid- 
dle age. 
But we are not to leave him there and guess the rest. It is 
not necessary to infer anything, but we can go farther along this 
network of circumstances which he has woven around himself, and, 
thanks to those who have so well assisted the State’s Attorney in the 
matter, we find in his possession, in a foreign market, the property 
of Mrs. Ann Freeze, and find him parting with it for a trifling 
sura. How do we show this? We find him arriving in Boston at 
2 P.M. on the 9th of June, from his own account. And here we 
may speak of .another fact that the government claims. They 
have put evidence in to show that he went to Providence. What 
mistakes a man will make when he endeavors to cover up his 
crime ! When inquired of he says he has been to Providence ; sharp, 
shrewd, and calculating, he had told somebody of going, but had 
forgotten to settle up with his employers here. He says he went 
from Fitchburg depot in Boston to the Providence depot. He stops 
at Providence depot, however, for if he had gone farther he could 
have shown it. He tells a story absolutely false and proven to be 
so. He says the fare from Boston to Providence was $3.25, where- 
as it is but $1.25. Is there any contradictory evidence from those 
with whom he talked? None. He told them when he was arrested 
that he had not heard of the murder ; he had been to Providence. 
Within three hours a man comes forward and says he read to Phair 
an account of the murder at Fitchburg. Phair had forgotten that 
his paramour was murdered. He has made his bed and marked 
it all along with crime, and furnishes even the rope to hang him- 
self with. John P. Phair had a definite account of that transac- 
tion such as he would not forget, and yet says when arrested he 
never heard of it before. Forget it! 
In the valise is found a new shirt, unworn. When inquired of 
he says he bought it of Mr. Haven, at Vergennes. Why did he 
not tell the truth ? Because it would undoubtedly have told that 
he was in Boston. When the shirt is exhibited in Vergennes they 
say they never had such a shirt in the store for sale. There is no 
chance for mistake. He knew Mr. Haven ; was born and bred in 
Vergennes. Link by link he is forging the chain which must in- 
evitably swamp him. That face never confused, that mind never 
doubting, that man never troubled; unblushing he laughs with 48 
those who laugh, and jokes upon his own trial for murder. Look 
at that face and it stands patent there ; a face uncommon, thank 
God ! He knew what he was doing. There is no feminine weak- 
ness to account for these false stories. He was wittingly and 
understanding!}' forging those chains about him. We think you 
will be satisfied that he did not go to Providence. He undertakes 
to tell his lodging-house, and describes directions for the purpose 
of making proof that he was not in Boston. Would there not have 
been somebody here to tell us if he was in Providence ? This is no 
trifling suit, but a man tried for his life. John P. Phair accused 
of everything else cannot be accused of being a fool, and therefore 
can prove himself being at Providence depot. The prosecution 
have a right to assert he was not at Providence for want of evi- 
dence as to his being there. Is it of no consequence ? It is of the 
greatest consequence, vital, life-enduring consequence to him, worth 
all his life is worth. Could they have shown that he was there 
it would have saved him, so easy would it have been. 
We will now show a branch of the case which connects this man 
directly with the crime. It is incumbent upon us to show several 
things about this property in order to show John P. Phair to be 
the man. We have shown that he parted with that watch to Myer 
Abrahams, but don’t care to unless it was Mrs. Freeze’s property. 
But if he did, these two things are shown : no jewellery is found in 
the ruins, and that in these thirty-six hours Phair parts with the 
jewellery. This evidence points right at the man. We have shown 
it in a way that no one will doubt it for a moment; not only the 
W'atch but all this property. How about this watch? There are 
some things left uncertain, but that watch has stamped upon it a 
certainty. There are no two watches of the same number and same 
make ; we proved that the watch was found at Myer Abrahams’, 
pledged on the afternoon of the 9th ; found, identified, and brought 
back here with Myer Abrahams. He is committed to jail and 
identifies his man on the spot. Have they the audacity to question 
that ? There is some questions that they can raise, but there is a piece 
of property that they cannot ask you to believe is not Ann Freeze’s 
watch. They may ask you to believe that it was not pawned by 
this man, but upon that point God Almighty has fixed his seal. 
If a man had the best character in New England, however high in 
the scales, and the question depended upon a piece of evidence 
which is now submitted, his character would not save him. 
No doubt about it, as he says on the stand. So say they all 
with regard to property. Are the other side in a position to criti- 
cise the testimony of Myer Abrahams, James G. Pierce, John 
Donovan and others? Their testimony was advertised three 
months ago. They could have gone and tried to prove its unre- 
liability, but they have brought nobody here. Had there been one 
of the seven from Boston whose testimony was not true they 
could have endeavored to criticise it. Will they undertake to call 
them Jews? They will make little headway there. Their business 
is a study of the faces of men. They never mistake in dealing with 
strangers ; their only protection is in being cautious and careful, 
weighing them in the balance of discrimination. All these men 49 
show a degree of intelligence and minuteness that entitles them to 
the fullest credit. 
When “ E. F. Smith ” pawned that watch he claimed to be stop- 
ping at the Adams House, and told a story about his sister. We 
find next day he pawned a shawl and opera-glasses at J. G. 
Pierce’s, signed a receipt for the same; that receipt is before you. 
They find him at the Adams House. Before Messrs. Stearns and 
Thornton left Rutland the second time, they procured Phair’s sig- 
nature at the jail, and then he wrote under it “ E. F. Smith, St. 
Albans, Yt.” These two signatures stand proved as being the 
writing of the prisoner. There his shrewdness left him and he 
forged a chain which helps us on in the march of justice. That he 
did it voluntarily and in presence of M. G. Everts and others. 
That is a chain of evidence which no character could stand. 
They found he occupied No. 61 at the Adams House ; circum- 
stances are terrible, swift, and damning when we follow this chain 
of evidence along ; find it complete, overwhelming. Not only he 
was there, but we find Mrs. Freeze’s shawl left in room 61; find 
the half-shawl in a wardrobe ; it is brought here and shown to you. 
Its counterpart is found with Dora Wilson, who swears it was 
given her last winter by Mrs. Freeze, and that she cut it in two. 
Evidence is conclusive that it was formerly possessed by Mrs. 
Freeze ; E. F. Smith must have been somebody that had something 
to do with Ann Freeze. Armed and equipped with this writing by 
the prisoner unfortunate for him but fortunate for the ends of 
justice— they find he registered his name at the Adams House as 
“E. F. Smith.” Look at the signature on the book, then look at the 
receipt, and then look at his own signature made in jail! 
This multitude of facts and straws make up what we call circum- 
stantial evidence, which is stronger than the testimony of men. 
Men will lie ; men will forget; but circumstances never. Wc ask 
you to take this evidence for just what it is worth, and it would 
hang a better man than John P. Phair. Aside from this hand- 
writing, we bring these men to speak of the identity of the man. 
John Donovan, Jr., swears with certainty. Is any man liable to 
forget that face? Never ! Not one in two thousand are like him. 
His face is not an ordinary face, but a marked face. They bring 
in George W. Stewart and wife, reliable witnesses, to state that 
they think it is the man ; they had not seen him before nor since 
that time ; and how much more likely that John Donovan and Myer 
Abrahams, who had so good advantage to see him, should know 
him. When we come to connect it with this hand-writing on the 
wall, I feel you are entirely certain that John P. Phair is the man. 
It is a satisfaction to know that no such man as E. F. Smith of St. 
Albans was there. Does John P. Phair bring any one here to 
show that there is an E. F. Smith, of St. Albans ? What is the 
conclusion? That there is no E. F. Smith, of St. Albans. If 
otherwise, he would have been here. E. F. Smith is a myth, and 
they know it. We think you must be satisfied that E. F. Smith 
and John P. Phair are one and the same person. 
Leaving these writings and testimony, let us look at the motive 
for doing this act. We find John P. Phair short of money time 50 
after time, and we find Ann Freeze with large sums upon her per- 
son. Did not this man know that she had money? Then there is 
one thing they lay stress upon, “You found no blood.” Do they 
want us to find blood after these evidences? Thank the Lord 
again. We find this man there not as an ordinary marauder or 
robber; he was then occupying her house and bed. That bed 
stood with the head to the south, filling the alcove on the left side 
of the room. The stabs are on the right side of the neck, and the 
face consequently must be turned towards the wall. There, sharing 
that woman’s house and bed, with the devil in his heart, he gets 
up in his night apparel, uses whatever weapon he can find God 
only knows what he used to take her life, while she was sleeping. 
We find a razor in the ruins and a razor-case in his trunk, but 
no razor. Dora Wilson says she never saw a razor at Mrs. 
Freeze’s ; but they bring up a man with a fragrant reputation, who 
says he saw a razor there twice. This testimony is subject to 
severe criticism. In regard to this reward, if none had been 
offered this crime would never have been fastened upon the mur- 
derer, or have been traced out in all its present completeness. If 
men take up a case and follow it as these men have done, they 
are not to be sneered at, but rather entitled to the thanks of the 
community. 
The Court here adjourned for dinner, and at 2 o’clock, P.M., 
Mr. Ormsbee continued his argument. 
You are assured this is no pleasing task to claim before you 
that any man is guilty of the crime as charged of the respondent. 
We only do a duty we owe to the State, and to others who are a 
part of the State. We have called your attention to nearly all the 
principal points in the testimony, to all articles and instruments 
found and put into the case, except this bloody key. It was 
found in one of the doors of Mrs. Freeze’s house. No one would 
take a bloody key and put it into a door after it was taken from the 
house. The blood upon it is matter for you to consider. It is 
not my purpose to revert further to testimony, even in a collected 
manner. It is all before you ; no serious complication that you 
cannot understand ; it is all fresh in your minds, and will not 
escape your notice. It is necessary to say }rour duty is a serious 
one, or one not often devolving upon a Rutland county jury. It is 
trying a man for murder ; and your duty is plain, whether satisfied 
on the testimony or not. No considerations of sympathy, how 
much they may appeal to you under other circumstances, should 
be for a moment weighed by you. It is stern, unrelenting justice 
which is demanded at your hands. Be just before you are gen- 
erous. Our sympathetic natures are apt to give way to justice 
and its demands, and we only ask you to act strictly on your 
oath, and we shall be satisfied ; ask oul}r your decision on the evi- 
dence presented by the State. 
Hon. D. E. Nicholson followred with the opening argument for 
the defence. 
What evidence is there in this case to show that this man was 
present at the time the crime occurred, and that if so, any extra- 
ordinary occurrence had arisen, as there might have done. A des- 51 
perate woman might be induced to rise in a time of exasperation 
that might have moved a man, in self-defence, to commit this crime ; 
and there is evidence of a quarrel in Avhich there were three par- 
ticipants. Who knows but that he might have struck a blow in 
self-defence, and then committed the crime of arson to cover up the 
crime. But this would not be a murder in the first degree ; and 
w'e call it to your conviction that it would be more natural for a 
man to defend himself than to make an assault. The prosecu- 
tion assume that murder has been committed, and that this is the 
man. I ask from you a more cool assumption for each one of the 
circumstances in the case, which must be proved beyond a doubt. 
There are a few causes incidental to the case that must be proved 
by that careful analysis of which you are the judges, before you 
condemn a man to an untimely death. There are a few circum- 
stances that must be made clear. You are not going to convict a 
man purely upon circumstantial evidence. If Mrs. Anna Freeze 
was murdered, you must prove who did it. There are a hundred men 
in this community who were equally capable of doing that crime. 
Who knows but that some man who wishes to injure this man 
committed the criipe which they are now trying to prove against 
this man. Would a man possessed of any brains, that had been 
as open in intercourse with this woman as has this man, would he 
have been likely to commit this crime as a man with soft hands, 
one who would not work, but who, in the shades of night, visiting 
her house, and seeing her money and valuables, coveted them ; 
would this man at the bar have been more likely to commit the 
crime than he? 
The prosecution must satisfy you that John P. Phair and the 
same E. F. Smith are one and the same person. If he had those 
goods it is no sign that he murdered her, and if in the sworn evi- 
dence any one of these links are broken, the case goes down. 
When they prove to you all the twelve cases, if there be any doubt 
in your minds in regard to any one of them, he goes free and you 
are to be careful that no link is lost. 
Gentlemen of the jury, do you know beyond a doubt that Anna 
Freeze was not murdered? We have got beyond those days when 
men were convicted of murder before a murder had been com- 
mitted. 
Do you know that she is dead? You are to be satisfied that she 
is dead ; and you are not to hang any man until you have gone 
over the entire ground. What is the evidence to show that she is 
the same person whose remains were taken from those ruins? 
Were it not for the dental tooth taken from the ruins, that Dr. 
Lawton dare not swear to, }rou have no evidence. He dare not 
swear to it, and dare }rou ? Is there not really a doubt that the 
tooth was not hers, and if there is, the identification is not proved. 
Here are a mother and sisters who have had the last, long, linger- 
ing look at the burned and charred remains, and they dare not 
swear that they are the remains of the daughter and sister. 
We claim that the trip to Boston and Providence was taken in 
pursuance of an original plan, as persons that have been intimate 
with him for a long time have sworn. You don’t know who com- 52 
mitted that crime or when the murderer left town ; he might have 
left on the midnight train. The fire was kindled beyond all ques- 
tion by the murderer who designed it for a slow fire. We don’t 
know by what road or what way the perpetrator of that crime 
went to Boston, Had Phair committed that crime he would not 
come back here, knowing that the officers of the law would take 
him into their clutches. If he had been guilty of this crime would 
he not have kept clear of Rutland people, and yet when giving an 
account of his absence he tells of riding with Conductor Stewart, 
who, upon seeing Phair, identifies him as the man. 
If one drop of blood could have been found it would have helped 
the case of the prosecution, yet not a drop has been discovered ; 
they claim that b}r being in certain positions, blood could have 
been drawn, so that a person would not have received any on his 
person. They claim that there is no necessity for blood. Yet they 
take a key on which there is a drop of rust, and the garments of 
the accused, but no trace of it can be found. They ask you to be- 
lieve that he threw the pocket-book away which the boy thinks that 
he had, but cannot swear to, because he only had $5 on his person 
when arrested. Gentlemen of the jury, he had no more money 
than that because he was not the man. He spoke very ably upon 
the point of the hand-writings exhibited, and closed with an appeal 
to the jury to acquit the prisoner. 
Gentlemen of the Jury: When Mr. Nicholson arose to address 
you it was almost the first time since the prisoner’s arrest that 
any voice was raised in his behalf. Last summer a great crime 
was committed in our midst. The great excitement that attended 
it occupied the attention of all, and the great reward offered for 
the detection of the perpetrator stimulated the imaginations of 
those who had nothing else to do in propounding “ theories” of the 
commission of the crime wdio did the deed. Phair had been 
seen with the woman, and had gone away. On the strength of that 
he was arrested. Reward-seekers go to Boston and return with 
some old shawls and opera-glasses, the remnants of the fire; Phair 
had pawned them in Boston, it was said. Upon that public opinion 
did not smoulder as the fire did in the dead woman’s house. It 
burst out in a flame against this man. The press fanned it. The 
investigation begins. The State’s Attorney, with Vermont at his 
back, and reward-seekers with $2,500 before their hope, proceed to 
arrange their case. The man is in prison, poor and friendless, 
and ignorant of what is being done outside. He cannot counteract 
their work. Is it strange that this tremendous power should have 
been able to array a set of circumstances against this man? Is it 
strange that these interested parties should have been able to build 
up a public sentiment against him ? Is it strange that many weak- 
minded people have yielded to their positive assertions of his guilt? 
Would it be strange if the excitement and indignation kindled in 
the thoughtless mob should cry out, “ Crucify him ?” But, for- 
tunatety, he is not to be tried by a mob, nor by interested reward- 
COL. VEAZEY’S ARGUMENT. 53 
seekers, nor by ambitious officials; but by you, gentlemen, a jury 
of his peers ; men whose intelligence lifts them above the howls 
of the mob; men whose judgment is not formed by the outcry of 
these people; men whose minds are capable of appreciating and 
investigating facts ; men who will not fear to do exact justice be- 
tween the prisoner and the State. You are his refuge, and you 
will be his succor. From you I feel confident of a patient listen- 
ing. I come, too, with confidence that I can demonstrate to you 
that the prisoner must be acquitted. This is no flippant boast, nor 
said to influence your minds, but a conclusion attained after a de- 
liberate review of the law and the evidence. I assume no greater 
burden than any law}Ter could sustain. There are two chief propo- 
sitions for the State to establish: First, that Anna Freeze was 
murdered; second, that the prisoner murdered her. These two 
principal propositions embrace many subordinate propositions 
which I will state in the course of the discussion. The evidence is 
all circumstantial, and the difference between this kind of evidence 
and positive evidence you doubtless know. The law has carefully 
guarded against error where circumstantial evidence is relied upon. 
The Court will give you the law applicable, but that you may 
better understand, I will state some of the rules as I understand 
them. (1) Great care and caution ought to be used in drawing 
inferences from proved facts ; it must be a fair and natural, and not 
a forced and artificial construction. (2) Each fact necessary to 
the conclusion must be distinctly and independently proved by 
competent evidence, and in criminal cases beyond a reasonable 
doubt. (3) All the facts proved must be consistent with each 
other, and with the main fact sought to be proved. (4) The cir- 
cumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, produc- 
ing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and 
no one else committed the offence charged. It is not sufficient 
that they create a probability, though a strong one ; and if, there- 
fore, assuming all the facts to be true, which the evidence tends to 
establish, they may yet be accounted for upon any hypothesis 
which does not include the guilt of the accused, the proof fails. 
(5) The circumstances should to a moral certainty exclude every 
other hypothesis. In the case of murder, the evidence must not 
only prove a death by violence, but must, to a reasonable certainty, 
exclude the hypothesis of suicide, and a death by the act of any 
other person. This is to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 
It is not enough that believe him guilty. You might believe 
this from various causes. Nor is it enough to believe the chances 
are that he is guilty, or that you think it more likely that he is 
guilty than innocent. The test is, are each of you, individually, 
convinced of his guilt, so that you are ready to act upon that con- 
viction, independently of each other, so that j-ou would act upon 
it in the highest concern of your own? You must not lean upon 
each other and think your individual responsibility for error will 
be small. The question for each one is, “Am I morally certain 
of this man’s guilt.” If not, you must acquit. They will tell you 
circumstantial evidence is conclusive. This is true if each cir- 
cumstance is conclusive, and all lead to the result and exclude 
every other hypothesis. 54 
Having now considered the nature and the means of the proof 
required, we are prepared to examine the evidence. The circum- 
stances upon which they rely to prove Phair guilty of the murder are, 
(1) His intimacy with Mrs. Freeze. But this circumstance is not 
inconsistent with his innocence, but it is evidence rather of inno- 
cence. Would he have appeared in public with her had he de- 
signed murder? But he was not shown to be with her after the 
circus. The nearest they get him to her after that is 60 or 80 rods 
away from her house, and going in a direction from it. (2) Ab- 
sence from his room Sunday and Monday night. In the first place, 
it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is proven that he 
frequently stayed with Barnard. It is shown that some one else was 
with Mrs. Freeze on Sunday night and Monday morning. (3) 
His not being seen on Monday. This is negative evidence, merely. 
Probably the State could bring on plenty of witnesses to swear 
that they did not see any of you gentlemen on that day. The tes- 
timony of Cain is negative and worthless. But Mrs. Freeze was 
seen if he was not. (4) Going to Boston. That of itself proves 
nothing. Thousands went. There were no suspicious circum- 
stances connected with his departure. His appearance was natural. 
He went straight through Boston to the Providence depot. They 
prove that his course corresponded exactly with his subsequent 
statements even to the description of the depot in Providence. 
The State also proves that his trip was taken in accordance with a 
long expressed design of going to Providence to get work from the 
American Screw Company. Therefore, we find that this journey 
was in accordance with an expressed purpose, with a natural pur- 
pose, and every circumstance attending it rebuts the presump- 
tion of guilt unless he is identified in Boston. As to identy, there 
is the greatest liability to error. Persons often so greatly resem- 
ble each other that intimate friends mistake them. But liability 
of mistake, of course, increases strongly among strangers, and 
where opportunity for observation lessens. 
This man was seen as an ordinary customer—for a few moments 
only among many other customers, in a dingy pawnshop, and 
with a dress of most ordinary kind. The attention of witnesses 
was not called to this person for several days, and then photo- 
graphs were shown them of Phair, and he is minutely described 
and all the circumstances explained. Then these men come up 
here and go to jail and pick him out. The identification will 
quickly be seen to be a farce if the testimony is considered in 
detail. Ist, James G. Pierce is a Howard-street pawnbroker ; he 
has from a dozen to fifty customers each day. The man Smith 
who did the pawning was in the store about 10 minutes. There 
was nothing peculiar about his dress; Pierce remembered that his 
suit was light gray, which is a very common color in the summer. 
He does not remember the color of the hat. He saw Phair’s photo- 
graph before coming to Rutland, and talked about him with 
Stearns and Thornton. He then went to jail, saw Phair, and now 
says he is the man. His identification in this court amounts to 
nothing. He swears that he never can be mistaken except in case 
of twins. With him resemblance is nothing, twins everything. 55 
Morris Livingston, the next witness, is another pawnbroker, or 
dealer in old rags. He happened to be in Pierce’s shop at the 
time and witnessed the transaction. He did not have his attention 
called to him in any way. He had no interest in him. Four 
weeks afterwards he is brought up here by Stearns and Thornton ; is 
shown a photograph ; goes to the Jail; Phair is brought out between 
two old men, and lo and behold 1 he identifies him. He identifies 
this man, but he has lately forgotten Justice Everts, whom he saw 
for three hours. Yet he makes a study of faces, as Ormsbee says. 
Isaac Smith is the next man who makes a study of faces. His 
attention was called to this man by Pierce, on the other side of 
Howard street. Pierce told him about the fire and murder, and 
then he comes up here, sees a photograph, goes to jail and recog- 
nizes Phair. And yet he cannot pick out Judge Evarts before 
whom he testified. Meyer Abrams is another pawnbroker. Stearns 
and Thornton showed him a photograph, told him about the mur- 
der, and he picks out Phair. There was no one else in jail dressed 
in light clothes or who looked like Phair. He says he never makes 
a mistake. 
And now comes Samuel Ehrlich, who bought the rings. After 
the usual preliminary explanation from Stearns & Thornton, he 
says Phair is the man. And yet, when his attention was called to 
this matter in Boston, he had forgotten all about the rings, and 
could remember nothing about the transaction. Christian A. 
Voght then says a man offered these same rings to him, but he 
sent him to Ehrlich. After he has had the man described to him, 
he also picks him out in jail without any test. The last witness on 
this point is Mr. Donavan, the hotel clerk, who saw him at the 
Adams House, under the most favorable circumstances to picking 
him out, and yet he will not swear that Phair is the man. They 
describe light clothes, which are worn by nearly every one, and a 
hat like the hat of nearly every juryman. He had an umbrella 
when he went away and returned, and yet not a Boston witness 
testifies that he had an umbrella. And then he had a box of col- 
lars and valise. Who goes to Boston without collars and valise. 
Then look at the characters of most of these men. Their business 
is that of pawnbroking a life of fraud. Their race bears the 
curse of God, because they crucified his Son eighteen centuries 
ago, and have been crucifying him ever since by their frauds and 
misdeeds. They don’t regard an oath administered in the Chris- 
tian form. To hang a man on their testimony would be to murder 
him. You would not trust any of them with five dollars. You are 
required to find the fact of his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Can }rou say you are so convinced? It is better that ten guilty 
escape than that one innocent suffer, not only on account of the 
man accused, but for the personal safety of all. And it is better 
that a guilty man escape than that he be convicted in violation of 
the rules of evidence and law. Will you violate the rule of doubt 
to convict this man, because Ormsbee says he is of a bad charac- 
ter? No peril to society and individuals equals that of a disregard 
for established rules in the administration of law. Let Courts and 
juries override these rules, and there is no safety. It is easy for 56 
adroit men to weave a network of suspicious circumstances about 
a man ; but when Courts and juries subject them to the rigid test of 
long-established rules; the chain is broken. We are in danger of 
being affected by surrounding circumstances. We do not need to 
be told the thoughts of men. The eye, the countenance tell us. 
We know many men are interested in procuring conviction. The 
positive in assertion are committed, the weak-minded are over- 
come. I don’t know about the sentiment of others, but as for me 
I feel that many would jump at the conclusion of this man’s guilt. 
I ask you to guard against this silent influence. The history of 
criminal jurisprudence is full of illustrations of mistaken identity. 
(Col. Veazey here alluded at length to cases of mistaken identity.) 
But they say, We have the hand-writing. This is simply bolster- 
ing up a weak case with a weaker kind of evidence. There is a 
hundredfold more chances of error in identity of hand-writing than 
of person. It is often difficult to detect difference between the 
writing of different men. Boys copy the writing of the same 
teacher, and write like him and each other. This writing could 
easily have been forged, so that the resemblance would have been 
as great. This is a very common hand; the ordinary hand of a 
laboring man who can write pretty well. It is a singular fact 
that, although this man did not get there until 5 o’clock, very few 
were registered on that day before him, and his name is at the 
bottom of the page. There are usually many registered for 
dinner, but on that day there were very few. Wli3r is it the last on 
the page? It would give an opportunity for forgery. Think of 
the polluted source through which this comes, men working for 
the $2,500 reward. If Phair wrote that name on the register, he 
would not have written it on a paper for the State. You cannot 
find that this is his writing beyond a reasonable doubt. But if 
gentlemen think this is a strong circumstance against him, I will 
offset it by a stronger one in his favor. The fire was not dis- 
covered until nearly seven o’clock, and yet if Phair set it, he must 
have done it as early as three. This leaves four hours for the fire 
to smoulder in a balloon-framed house, which would burn like 
tinder. Gentlemen, it is impossible that this fire could have been 
kindled by him. If Phair was in Providence, he could not have 
pawned the goods; and he described the Providence depot so 
exactly that there cannot be very much doubt here. If he was the 
man who pawned the goods, what did he do with the $5O he re- 
ceived for them, and the money which he stole from Mrs. Freeze. 
Every effort has been made to find it in Boston and among his 
friends, and no trace of it has been discovered. Their theory 
that he threw it away is absurd. 
The report in the Boston “ Journal ” was no news to him, if he 
murdered her. There was no more reason for him to throw that 
money away after than before that. The man who would commit such 
a deed, walk back in the face of arrest, and do as Phair has done, 
would not throw away the whole fruits so readily. This theory of 
the wallet is a humbug. All these things show that he was not E. 
F. Smith. But there are also other things. No trace of blood 
could be found upon any of his clothes. It would have been im- 57 
possible for him to have cut the woman’s throat without bearing 
some trace of blood. The razor theory is so effectually exploded 
that it is useless for me to consider it. Then, would Phair have 
come immediately back if he committed the murder? He knew 
at Fitchburg that it was discovered. 
The State’s Attorney promised some contradictory statements. 
Has he proven any? Not at all. They have not proved that he 
did not go to Brandon, nor that he had a wallet at Bellows Falls, 
nor that he did not have business at Vergennes or Elizabethtown. 
But even if his statements were contradictory this should have 
little weight. An innocent man would be apt to misstate either 
through excitement or fear. His whole conduct has been con- 
sistent with innocence. He has answered all questions, and did 
all that he was asked to do. He played his accordion to the girls 
at the Berwick House, Sunday night. Would a man witli murder 
in his heart do this? They said they would show he had no money. 
But it is proven that he had SSO a few weeks previous. And they 
show none paid out. On the other hand he seemed to be saving 
money for a trip to Providence. They have not proved that he did 
not borrow the money of the apple-tree man as he stated. They 
undertook to show that he lied about the fare to Providence from 
Boston. 
The manner of the witnesses in testifying on this point, shows 
that the}r lie. The amount Phair stated was for the round trip, 
and with this explanation he told the truth. But an innocent man 
when placed in circumstances of danger and suspicion may resort 
to deception to avoid the effect of such proof. This is a case of 
circumstantial evidence, and many of the circumstances unex- 
plained point to the guilt of the accused, but you cannot be too 
careful in deciding upon a man’s life on such evidence. There 
have been men convicted of murder in this very State when no 
murder had been committed. There have been many men con- 
victed upon circumstantial evidence stronger far than this, and 
subsequent events have proved them innocent. You must remem- 
ber the character of the woman, that her house was the household 
of sin, the resort of the low and the vile, the likelihood of a 
quarrel at such a place, and that she displayed her money and 
jewelry to all. I now leave the prisoner in your hands, with the 
assurance that you will grant him exact justice. I have done the 
duty assigned me. I may in the heat of argument have overstepped 
the bounds of sound reason and correct statement, but if so, I 
crave your pardon, and that you will not charge it against the 
prisoner in your deliberations ; but demand the same of him who 
follows. Require from him a fair and exact statement of the evi- 
dence. Ido not fear a fair presentation of the case for the State. 
Many sad thoughts crowd upon ray mind as I leave this case. I 
remember the terrible embarrassments growing out of this man’s 
poverty. I see clearly how much more could have been done with 
time and means. 
The prisoner had no money, not even his liberty, to prepare a 
defence. I recall that widowed mother away in a distant city, old, 
infirm, heart-broken, realizing the peril and destitution of her son, 58 
yet powerless to help him. I know that that boy is as dear to her 
as though no stain was upon him. I know she could not if she 
would, and would not if she could, smother the maternal affections 
that make a mother so dear. Gentlemen, shall your verdict carry 
joy or sorrow to that anxious, broken heart? 
I remember, too, the sister, alone in another distant city, young, 
educated, accomplished, struggling to earn an honest livelihood, 
yet drinking the gall of bitterness to the very dregs. Oh! if you 
could see her as I have, crushed to the very earth as she heard the 
clanking of the bars of his dungeon, where Ihe light of day never 
penetrated, I am sure you would feel as I did, that he must be 
saved for her sake. Shall your verdict press the iron deeper still 
into her 3’oung heart, or shall it rather lift this crushing sorrow 
from it? Gentlemen, into your hands I commit the destiny of the 
prisoner and the bleeding hearts of kindred, who are as dear 
to him, and he as dear to them, as your mothers and sisters are to 
you. Ido not ask you to forget justice and remember mercy only. 
I ask 3rou to temper justice with mercy. It is an attribute of God 
himself. “And earthly power doth then show likest God’s when 
mercy seasons justice,” 
ARGUMENT OF COL. C. H. JOYCE. 
In opening the final argument, Col. Joyce made a critical review 
of the arguments of the defense, and alluded to the fact that the 
position of the State had been fully set forth by the State Attorney. 
Col. said : 
This is an important case, one of the most vital importance to 
the respondent, and not only to him, but to the community. He is 
not the only person interested ; the laws are not made for the pun- 
ishment of the guilty, but to protect the innocent. If this man is 
allowed to go quit here ; if twelve men, with all this testimony in- 
troduced before them, and with such a lack of any defense, can 
turn him loose upon the community, it is a matter for very serious 
consideration. Has there been a man in the court-house during 
this trial could rest quietly upon his pillow and feel safe if this man 
was allowed to go? Think of it, gentlemen ;itis a solemn matter. 
Your verdict must be of vital consequence to this man; but the 
consequences are not with you, or me, or with the Court. It is our 
duty we must do; our consciences must be satisfied. We intend 
to be right, to look at the case squarely, and back up our proof by 
argument. This crime is the greatest of all crimes, and the feeling 
in this community sufficiently indicates it. The penalty” of this 
crime is the same as was handed down to the children of Israel 
from Mount Sinai. “ That man who takes the life of his fellow- 
man, shall his life be taken.” Such has always been the law ;it is 
the law of Vermont to-day. Of course the penalty calls upon you 
to give it the most careful attention and candid consideration. 
The gentleman who opened this case started off by saying this 
woman who has been murdered was of bad reputation. 
That is hardly inside of this case. I think it is only necessary 
to believe simply the evidence against the woman’s character, and all 59 
that has been produced has been the testimon}” of Peter Lavigne 
and one other man as to driving gentlemen down there in the night. 
He starts off with saying it is just as criminal to murder her as any 
one, and then sa}rs the community suffers no loss, leaving the in- 
ference that this man was commissioned to become the executioner 
of all w'omen who have departed from the paths of chastity and rec- 
titude. I have nothing to say about this woman. It is your plain 
duty to blot out of your mind entirely all such ideas, and try this 
case on an entirely different theory than that. What would be the 
result if we adopted a theory of that kind ? Know you not what a 
slight thing it is to ruin a woman’s character for life? One little 
insinuation or slander upon the street-corner will ruin a woman for 
life who may still be as pure as the snow on yonder mountain. 
She is turned out on to the cold charity of the world, while her 
seducer and betrayer is petted and taken into the best circles of 
society. lam well justified in saying to you to keep strictly within 
the evidence in the case, and not go outside of it. This man is not 
to say who shall be slain and who shall not. How know you the 
broken vows, the terrible temptations, brought to bear upon that 
woman which induced her to lead the life she did, while the villain 
takes front rank in some Christian church? Let us not look all 
upon one side in investigating this matter. 
Here Mr. Jo3'ce closely reviewed all the testimony in the case, 
but as a clear review of the evidence for the prosecution has been 
given in Mr. Ormsbee’s argument, it will be unnecessary to repeat 
it here. He closed his eloquent argument as follows : 
My sympathies are with that man, but I have a duty here beyond 
all human sympathy. It is your duty to take this testimony and 
weigh it in the most careful manner. The duty now rests upon 
you, which I hope you will never have to do again. Never but 
once before was I ever put in a position like this ; now it rests with 
you. The question to determine is, whether the prisoner is guilty 
or not. 
That being that was killed there was a human being ; that being 
was Anna Freeze ; that murder was committed by the respondent. 
I can come to no other conclusion. He had her property in his 
possession and has not accounted for it. 
Remember the people of this community have interests at stake 
here on this matter. The man who would go coolty to work and 
commit this act is not too cool to do the same upon the best lady 
in the land. Look at the interests of the community in the ver- 
dict. They are here to-day to manifest their interest in the case 
and the principles of the case. I leave the rights of the com- 
munity in 3'our hands, trusting that you will do your duty to your- 
selves, to your children, and to the community at large. 
At the close of the argument of Col. Joyce, Judge Wheeler began 
his 
CHARGE TO THE JURY. 
There has been so little controversy about the law among the 
counsel in the case that it is not necessary for me to say anything 
concerning that, and will only speak upon the facts as presented. 60 
That onl}r is in your province. I have but little to aid you in the 
performance of your dut}', but will make a few suggestions and 
still do what I am bound to do. 
Murder is the unlawful killing of any creature with malice afore- 
thought, expressed or implied. 
It is divided into two degrees, and it is important to define the 
difference. Now, by the statutes, murder by poison, by lying in 
wait, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate b}r arson, rape, 
burglary, or any wilful premeditated killing, is murder in the first 
degree. 
There are two things to be considered: the corpus delicti, that 
is, the establishing by clear proof that somebody killed Anna 
Freeze. It is first necessary to establish the fact that there was 
such a person as Anna Freeze ; as to this there is no dispute. It 
makes no difference as to her moral character it was murder in 
any event as far as character goes, and there is no excuse for the 
killing; the crime may even be considered greater in this case, 
where the person is considered as being unprepared for death. 
The killing of a person sick unto death or sentenced to death is 
unlawful killing, and that constitutes this crime. 
Malice means with a wicked mind. The fact of death, if found 
killed unlawfully, is improbable with the idea of killing herself; 
whether any property was to be gained by taking her life, and all 
these other circumstances that attended her death, are to be con- 
sidered as to whether she was unlawfully killed. Now, if these 
facts are made out, then it is murder in the first degree. If there 
was a deliberate setting about, with a plan to take her life before 
him and the carrying his intentions into effect, that is murder in 
the first degree. Or, if her life was taken in the act of perpetrat- 
ing a robbery upon her, because robbery would be felonious, tak- 
ing by force. In this view, elements of robbery are to be made out 
as to whether anything was taken from her against her will, in the 
act of murder, that would be murder in the first degree. You 
must find that she had property in her possession and taken by 
such force as to overcome her power to keep possession, and if 
murder was committed in doing that, it would be murder in the 
first degree. 
Also notice, if her life was taken in attempting to commit arson. 
The burning of a dwelling-house is arson by felonious attempt. 
Arson and robbery do not make murder, but the more important 
question is, whether her life was taken in committing robbery. 
If there was murder in fact, without these other attending cir- 
cumstances, then it was in the second degree. 
And if there was killing without the malice aforethought, it is 
manslaughter. 
It is very important to the respondent that you remember and 
understand these different degrees. 
I have been speaking of the committal of the crime by any per- 
son, whether the main offence is made out and whether one degree 
of crime has been committed. 
(Court then took a recess until seven o’clock in the evening 
when the judge concluded his charge.) 61 
It is necessary that the prosecution make out that some one 
committed the murder, and the respondent cannot be convicted 
without. If a crime has been committed, that is, unlawful killing, 
then the question for you to decide is, whether respondent did it. 
The evidence to be relied on in this case is entirely circumstan- 
tial, and still competent to convict him if made out; is competent 
to convict and is of the highest authority to show the guilt of the 
respondent. It is not enough that the circumstances are consistent 
with guilt, but they must make the guilt of respondent apparent 
beyond reasonable doubt. Each fact and circumstance is entitled 
to consideration, and no fact must appear inconsistent with the 
guilt, so that each circumstance, standing by itself, shall point un- 
erringly to the guilt of the respondent. If so, it is as good as 
direct evidence, and even better, as persons falsify sometimes. 
Crimes are generally done in secret, and there is always the fear 
of false statements by direct evidence. 
Now, the principal circumstance that you are to rely upon is, 
that the deceased was robbed, and that the respondent was shown 
to have the fruits of this robbery soon after, and gave false ac- 
counts of the same. The evidence of false statements alone is not 
of great weight. If he may have been overwhelmed, or to meet a 
circumstance apparently against him, or; to falsify wilfully. He is 
not on trial for falsifying, and innocent persons even do frequently 
falsify if they think necessary to show their innocence. 
The great point having been the robbery at the time of the mur- 
der, and that the respondent had the fruits unexplained, this cir- 
cumstantial evidence is an important case for you to consider. 
Whether she was robbed at the time of the murder? Take up that 
by itself. Did she have anything to be robbed of? Take that up 
by itself. If these goods produced were the goods she had then, 
find' whether respondent had them soon after. If he had them at all, 
that is evidence that he had them soon after. Upon this fact is 
the testimony of Pierce, Abrahams, Vogt, Livingston, Smith, 
Ehlrich, and Donovan. Their evidence is to be taken as to 
whether he had these goods in his possession. 
Then there is this entry of his name upon the hotel register and 
upon this receipt. These are to be compared with his hand-writing, 
as it is claimed all signatures are the same. The great point 
is, whether the respondent is that person. On this point you are 
to take the testimony 7 of these men, Warren H. Smith, and the 
bank cashiers. 
If you are not satisfied that the respondent had possession of 
these goods, then he is relieved of a piece of evidence against him ; 
therefore great care must be taken on this point. Examine the 
hand-writing for yourselves. 
If the respondent had these goods and unexplained, that evi- 
dence is sufficient, legally" sufficient, to warrant a Conviction. 
The other circumstances proved alone without this would not be 
sufficient. 
That is, if he did not have these goods, I don’t think the other 
evidence in the case would warrant his conviction. 
If the prosecution have made out that she was robbed, and he 62 
had the fruits soon after, then take up the others, which, if all 
taken together point to his guilt, that warrants his conviction ; 
otherwise not. 
In the testimony of Von Neida, you must understand that the 
statement in the Boston Journal is not evidence, onty in the fact 
of his reading it to the respondent. 
Then the property he had to gain is important, and the motive, 
as a person would not be likely to do it without one. Consider 
the evidence of Mr. Hardy, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Willis, as to 
the money she had on hand, to show a motive to commit this 
crime. 
No person is supposed to have anj- personal interest against the 
respondent. It has appeared that a reward has been offered, and 
this must be weighed by j’ou, and if a bias is displayed you must 
weigh that, also how much knowledge the witnesses had on the 
subject, and whether indifferent on it. This reward was lawful. 
If there is an interest shown in it by the witnesses, that must be 
weighed. 
The presumption which the case starts on is, that the man is in- 
nocent. The prosecution must overthrow that; keep that in 3rour 
mind constantly in your investigation of the case. To recall, 
briefly, }'ou must find : 
That a crime, as charged, has been committed. 
That the respondent was where he could commit this crime. 
That she was robbed at the time she was murdered. 
That the respondent had in his possession, soon after, the fruits 
of this robbery, because this is sufficient legal evidence to convict. 
If these are made out, does it appear to a moral certainty that the 
respondent did commit this crime? 
If there exists a reasonable doubt, then he must be acquitted. 
Otherwise, he must be convicted. The case is within a narrow 
compass. 
If you find the respondent guilty, then you must find whether he 
is guilty of murder in the first or second degree, or of manslaughter. 
If not guilty, then that is all. Bear in mind that the burden of 
proof is on the prosecution all the while. 
As to the nationality or religion of witnesses, it has no sort of 
consequence, or as to their business. All testimony is to be con- 
sidered as to its degree of credit. The respondent is supposed to 
be innocent until convicted. 
One subject suggested by the respondent’s counsel: something 
had been said in the argument that no explanation had been made 
as to the prisoner’s whereabouts. No inference should be made 
against him because he has not. So far as for himself you have 
no right to consider; there is no law to make him testify ; his 
silence is not to be weighed. He had a right to sit and prove 
nothing. Respondent says he was at Providence ; if he went, he was 
gone there when these goods were pledged. 
I have not undertaken to call your attention as fully and defin- 
itely as I might, as the case has been fully and ably argued on 
both sides. 
The jury in the Phair case retired at 8 o’clock Saturday evening 63 
to make up their verdict. At 11.30 the jury came in and Judge 
Wheeler directed the clerk to call the jury which he proceeded to 
do, all responding to their names. 
The clerk propounded the usual question : “ Are you agreed 
upon a verdict?” 
John P. Sheldon, the foreman, responded, “We are not.” 
Judge Wheeler asked the foreman if there was any further in- 
struction from the Court, or if there were any points in the charge 
the jury did not understand. 
The foreman responded that the jury did not fully understand 
the charge in reference to the degrees of murder. 
Judge Wheeler then proceeded to explain what constituted mur- 
der in the first degree as follows : 
Ity poison. 
Lying in wait. 
Murder with intention to commit robbery. There was some of 
that in this case. 
Arson, for the purpose of concealing the crime. There was 
something of that in this case. 
Murder for rape. 
Murder with premeditation. 
If murder was perpetrated to commit robbeiy, it was in the first 
degree. 
The jury again retired and returned in about twelve minutes with 
a verdict of “ Guilty of murder in the first degree.” 
The clerk again called the jury, each one answering to his name. 
Clerk. —Have you agreed upon a verdict? 
Foreman. —We have. Murder. 
Clerk. 
Foreman. First degree. 
Judge Dunton, in behalf of the prisoner, asked that the jury be 
polled, whereupon, by direction of the Court, the clerk put the 
questions : 
Q. Is the prisoner guilty ? 
A. Guilty. 
Q. In what degree? 
A. First degree. 
Each juryman having answered the questions, the Court placed 
the prisoner in the custody of the sheriff. 
The scene was an impressive one, perfect silence pervading the 
court-room, Judge Wheeler, previous to taking the verdict, having 
announced that quiet and order must reign, and that there must be 
no demonstration on the part of the audience, whatever the verdict 
might be. 
Phair showed no perceptible indications of emotion, save when 
the jury came in the first time he became very pale, but the color 
forsook his face but a moment; he quickly regaining full self- 
possession. 
At the January term of the Supreme Court for Rutland County 
Phair’s case was heard on exceptions. As this hearing was entirely 
legal, and would not possess general interest, and as it is fully 
reported in the 48th Volume of the Vermont Reports, where lawyers 64 
can readily refer to it, it is deemed best not to give a full report 
here. A motion for a new trial was also made at the same term, 
on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. As these affidavits 
were used on a subsequent application for a new trial, they will all 
be published there. The exceptions were overruled, the petition 
dismissed, and the respondent was sentenced to be hanged on the 6th 
of April, 1877. The warrant and sentence will be given hereafter, 
under the proceedings for the injunction. 
CHAPTER 11. 
THE REPRIEVES. 
After sentence had been passed upon the prisoner, he was then 
taken to the State Prison at Windsor, where, according to the 
terras of the sentence, he was to be incarcerated until his execu- 
tion, on the 6th of April, A.D. 1877. A few months before the 
expiration of the time of his imprisonment an effort was made by 
his counsel to secure a reprieA7e ; but this was refused, after a care- 
ful examination of the case by His Excellency Horace Fairbanks, 
then governor of the State. The decision was conveyed to Phair, 
and he was told that the last step had been taken, and that he 
must prepare for execution. He had submitted to the governor, 
on the application for a reprieve, a statement of his case, written 
by himself, and now that his prayer had been refused, he busied 
himself in adding to and revising this statement, which it was his 
desire to have published after his death, as the last words he had 
to utter concerning the crime for which he was to die. A few days 
before the arrival of the time fixed for his execution this statement 
was procured b}T Mr. E. C. Carrigan, a correspondent of the Bos- 
ton press, under an agreement, as will be seen b}7 a reference to 
Mr. Carrigan’s affidavit, published hereafter, that it should be pub- 
lished in full, and not until the da}r after the execution, and on 
these conditions that correspondent was to have the exclusive right 
of publication. The statement was then disposed of b}7 Mr. Carrigan 
to Edwin M. Bacon, the editor-in-chief of the Boston Daily Globe, 
with all the conditions of publication annexed. On Thursda}7, 
April sth, the day preceding that fixed for execution, the editor of 
the Globe ascertained that an abstract of the statement had been 
procured by the Associated Press for publication in the evening 
papers of Frida}7, and as this would detract largely from the value 
of the statement in full on Saturday morning, its correspondent 
was urged by all means to secure Phair’s consent to the publication 
of the statement on Friday morning. After considerable urging, 
Phair finally consented, on the ground that the paper containing 
the statement would not reach Rutland, the scene of the murder, 
and Vergennes, his home, until after the time of execution, and it 
would practically amount to a post-mortem publication. The docu- 
ment accordingly appeared in the Globe of Friday morning, April 
6th, and as it was so extraordinary in its nature, and as a knowl- 65 
edge of its contents is necessary to enable the reader clearly to 
understand the subsequent events, it is deemed best to publish it 
in full. 
THE “DYING STATEMENT.” 
“ Since my unfortunate and mysterious conviction, I have several 
times been interviewed by newspaper reporters, who seemed anx- 
ious to get at the truth of the grounds on which my conviction was 
claimed. The most of them were strangers to me, and represented 
the press of both New York and Massachusetts. At the time they 
called on me, I did not think that it would ever be necessary for 
me to make any statement relative to ray condition. But now, 
when I see that a few short days will, in all human probability, end 
my affliction, I deem it my highest duty to God and man to place 
before the people the following truthful statement: lam to-day 
confined in a solitary cell awaiting the execution of a death sen- 
tence for the crime of murder, which no being can justly say I have 
ever perpetrated. Since, and before, ray foul conviction I have 
had most implicit faith in a just deliverance from this great and 
grievous wrong, of which the Almighty knows I am a helpless vic- 
tim. But, as yet, I have learned of no change in the so-called 
evidence against me that will in any way revive my courage. As 
for the matter of death, it has no terror for me. Indeed, I can hail 
it as a welcome messenger, knowing that with it will come freedom, 
Divine justice, and a righteous acquittal before the Saviour of man, 
who knows my heart and cannot be mistaken. I deeply regret 
that the conduct of my earlier life was not more closely guarded 
against the dishonesty which dragged my character into a state of 
disrepute from which my best endeavors to reform have been mis- 
construed, laughed, and scouted at by a class whom I can call by 
no milder name than my personal enemies. The great and crown- 
ing mistake of my life was made between the age of seventeen and 
eighteen, when I committed a larceny on a respectable citizen of 
the town in which I lived. The act was rash and hasty, done at a 
time in my life when I was not as wise as I should have been. 
When accused of the crime, I immediately confessed it, and 
plead guilty before the County Judge, who sentenced me to six 
years’ hard labor in this State Prison. Many arraigned the judge 
who sentenced me, and believed he was too severe with me con- 
sidering my youth. But as for me, I offered no complaint, and 
accepted it as a just penalty for the offence I had given. On 
entering the prison where I expected to serve every day of my 
sentence, the thought of the terrible shame and disgrace I had 
brought upon an unsuspecting father, mother, and affectionate 
sisters so sorrowed my heart that it was many days after before I 
could reconcile myself to my shameful situation. I finalty braced 
up under a solemn resolve, that if it were in mortal power to over- 
come and regain what I had lost, I should prosecute the resolution 
to the end of ray life. During my imprisonment not a single day 
passed over nvy head without kneeling to the Almighty in my 
lonely cell and imploring His forgiveness and help to strengthen me 
against any and all temptation in the future that led to dishonesty. 
“ I was confined among nearly one hundred offenders of the law, 66 
and taught by personal observation and experience a lesson which, 
in my opinion, can be disregarded by none but the most depraved 
and abandoned of mankind. Notabl}7 associated with these were 
the sad and violent deaths of two men upon the gallows for the 
crime of murder, and another awaiting a similar fate, which wras 
to take place in a few weeks after my release from the prison. 
“ Accused as I am of a like crime, and convicted on evidence that 
ought not to hang a dog, I cannot help arraigning the partial judg- 
ment of a jury who have deliberately conformed to the wishes of 
unprincipled reward-seekers and prejudiced enemies, by robbing 
me of all doubt which they knew to have been legally mine. For 
anyone to suppose me guilty, or even capable of such a deed, with- 
out direct and positive proof, is a great injustice to me, which I 
hope time will prove to both my friends and enemies. Think of 
nry dearly-bought experience in this place. Think of the solemn 
promises I made to my friends on arriving home from here ; and 
above all, the terrible shame, disgrace, and inevitable death which 
I so well knew would follow such a deed, even had I dreamed of 
its commission. My accusers have tried to manufacture motives 
which they claim I might have had in perpetrating such a deed. 
“ But all such attempts, so far as they relate to me, present no 
truths whatever. For had I been the guilty part}7 the deed could 
have been prompted by no other motive than that of the most 
extreme wickedness, and a desire to ruin myself in this life and my 
soul eternally. After serving live of my six years’ sentence, I was 
pardoned by Governor Hendee, on a petition presented by my 
friends. On receipt of the pardon my heart leaped with inex- 
pressible joy, at which I supposed to have been genuine forgive- 
ness and a complete burial of all past issues, and an open way to 
a future life of honesty and happiness. But, alas ! how fallacious 
are human hopes and expectations in this world. The fact that all 
I had received this pardon for was for the second time raked up 
and heralded throughout the Union by the press, for the purpose of 
firing the public mind against me, was conclusive evidence to me 
that I had never been forgiven by the people, and that the pardon 
1 had received in the best of faith was a fraud. Of the twelve 
jurymen who sat on my case, there was not one who had not from 
time to time read the damaging assaults upon m3' character, which 
appeared daily in the Rutland newspapers, from the da}7 of 
m3' arrest until my foul conviction. Ever}7 scamp who visited Rut- 
land had some new slander to contribute to the hungry editors 
about me, whether they ever knew me or not. Hearsa}’s of the 
most absurd and damaging character were freel}' published. Not 
damaging because the}7 could not have been proved utterl}7 false, 
but because of their appearing at that particular time, when I had 
neither m37 libert}' nor the means to use in suppressing it. Then, 
too, the enormity of the crime of which I was accused, and as 
represented by the press, was certainly calculated to set the people 
of Rutland County against me, that an impartial trial could not be 
had under the then existing heat of prejudice and excitement. 
“ In view of all this, and as the time for my trial drew near, I was 
advised b}7 disinterested friends to petition the judge for a change 67 
of venue, whereby imr case could have been thrown into Benning- 
ton County for trial. The judge was petitioned without delay, and 
in response offered as his opinion, that the case could be as fairly 
tried in Rutland County as in any other. Disappointed in this, i 
then petitioned the Court for a continuance of m3' case to the next 
term of Court, and this was not granted. The Court then assigned 
me counsel, which I had not been able to provide for m3-self, and 
then pressed m3' trial so close that I had but veiy little time in 
which to defend nyself against the strongest prosecution the State 
could possibl3r get to bear on the case. M3' counsel, Messrs. 
Dunton & Veaze3', were at the time very bus3’ in other law business 
and the3' were obliged to acknowledge their inabilit3r to give my 
case anything like the attention necessaiy for a proper defense. 
But the trial was on, and I could do no more than submit to what 
followed. I hadn’t a dollar with which to empky a detective to 
investigate the strange work which two scheming reward-seekers 
had for three months carried on with the evident intent of securing 
my conviction, and the $2,500 reward, without any regard for jus- 
tice. On the other hand, as is w'ell known, the prosecution was 
armed with all the wealth and power in the State, and worse than 
all, it wras aided b3r perjured witnesses, which made nothing impos- 
sible for it to cany. My counsel were veiy able and honorable 
men, who, in their efforts to defend me, worked for the true ends of 
justice, regardless of the might3’ dollar which so often defeats it. 
These gentlemen well understood before undertaking m3’ case that 
unless I was acquitted I would not be able to pay them one cent 
for their labor. Still, this did not hold them aloof from their best 
endeavors to defend me under circumstances WIIOII3' unfavorable 
and discouraging. The3' expressed much regret at my not having 
means to emplo3r proper persons to inquire into the character of 
the Jew pawnbrokers who were brought from Boston to Rutland, 
and pretended to identify me as being a man who had sold them a 
watch and other articles which were found in their possession, and 
afterwards identified as the propert3r of the unfortunate woman. 
The claim set forth by the prosecution on the trial was in substance 
as follows : That on the 9th da3r of June, 1874, Anna E. Freeze of 
Rutland, Vt., was murdered, robbed, and her house burned to the 
ground; that on the same da3' a watch, opera-glass, shawl, and so 
on, belonging to the murdered woman, were pawned, or sold in 
Boston by a man giving the name of E. F. Smith, St. Albans, 
Vt. ; that this man registered under that name at the Adams House 
in Boston, where he stopped on that day and night, and that the 
man E. F. Smith and John P. Phair were one and the same per- 
son. That a certain room in the Adams House was assigned this 
man b3' the clerk of that house, and in which was found a lady’s 
half-shawl the next day after his departure from the house, and 
that the shawl had been identified as the propert3r of Mrs. Freeze. 
That the hand-writing on the hotel-register resembled and corre- 
sponded exactty with m3’ hand, and that there could be no mistake 
but what it was mine. 
“ The clerk of the Adams House, when asked if he could recognize 
me as being the man who had stopped at his house under that 68 
name, said that I looked like the man, but would not swear posi- 
tive that I was the man ; that his seeing me led into the hall between 
two officers and handcuffed might have led him to think so. This 
man was not a Jew, but apparently a gentleman. A Jew was then 
called, who swore positive that I was the man who had sold him 
the woman’s watch for S2O, and that he had given a pawn-ticket 
for the same. Another Jew swore that I looked to be the man 
who had sold him a Masonic finger-ring for $5 ; still another Jew, 
that I was the man who had offered finger-rings for sale at his store 
and that he had declined to buy them. Another man swore that I 
looked to be the man who had pawned with him a lady’s shawl and 
opera-glass for $lO. When asked if he could not be mistaken as to 
identity, he said he could not unless in the case of twins. The 
next and last of the so-called Boston witnesses was one Smith, an 
ex-convict, who had served a term in the Massachusetts State 
Prison. This man testified to his having seen me crossing some 
street in Boston on the same day these Jews claimed to have bought 
the woman’s jewels. J. C. Thornton and N. S. Stearns of Rutland 
were the reward-seekers and so-called detectives who brought these 
men to Rutland to identify and testify against me; and how in the 
world they were induced by them to do such a thing is a matter 
which as yet lam unable to understand. It was certainly a piece 
of work which I can never recognize as honest, and I am satisfied 
that the men never swore an identity on me voluntarily, from the 
fact that I was not the man whom they had dealt with, and they 
could not honestly have done such a thing. This Thornton and 
Stearns had forty-eight witnesses subpoenaed against me on the 
trial, and from the majority of them was elicited the most of the 
evidence for my defence ; and in all the testimony the prosecution 
endeavored to elicit from these so-called witnesses there was not a 
being who could come forward and sa}- that they had ever seen or 
known of my having been in the murdered woman’s company after 
the evening of June 6th. It was shown on the trial that the woman 
was seen alive and well by her neighbors on the 7th and Bth da}Ts 
of June, and that she was supposed to have been murdered on the 
9th. My trial commenced on the 2d day of October, 1874, and 
continued until a little past 11 o’clock on the night of the 6th, 
when the jury, after being out less than two and one-half hours, 
came in and rendered a verdict of murder in the first degree. 
Exceptions were then taken by my counsel, and the case went to 
the Supreme Court on a petition for a new trial. The Supreme 
Court convened at Rutland the latter part of January, and heard 
my case on the 3d day of February. This Court refused me a new 
trial, and offered an opinion that I had had a fair and impartial 
trial, and that if a new trial were granted me, there would prob- 
abty be some scheme or other gotten up to clear me. 
“To say that I was disappointed in the decision of this High 
Court does not express it; for I had hoped for redress from this 
Court, and think now as I did then that Chief Justice Pierpoint must 
have been strongly prejudiced against me. My reasons for think- 
ing thus are founded on the fact that the judge is a resident of the 
place where my former trouble occurred, and was the judge who 69 
sentenced me to prison at the time. The Court after refusing 
me a new trial, then sentenced me to be hanged on the first Frida}' 
in April, 1877. Before passing sentence, the Court inquired if I 
had anything to say why sentence should not be passed on me. I 
then addressed the Court briefly, claiming th at I had been foully 
convicted on false identity of person and hand-writing, and that as 
I was then unable to prove my claim to its satisfaction, I felt 
certain that time would bear me out in the truth. My mind to-day 
is the same as on that day, and cannot be changed by time nor 
eternity. I now feel that I have exhausted all honorable and legal 
efforts in my power to defend mj'self, and am in no way responsible 
to my Maker for the loss of my life. How my name happened to 
be associated with the name of the unfortunate woman is told in a 
brief sketch of her character by herself. About eight weeks prior 
to this woman’s death I went to Rutland in answer to a call from 
the proprietors of the Lincoln Iron Works of that place. I en- 
gaged work with this firm as a machinist, and also engaged board 
at the Berwick House, where I boarded until my arrest. I had 
been in Rutland a little over five weeks when I was introduced to 
Mrs. Freeze by a prominent and well-to-do man of that town, who 
I afterwards learned to have been her common patron and secret 
agent. This man had a wife at the time, as also did the larger 
number of her Rutland associates, whose names were made known 
to me b}' hearing them called in her conversation. A week later 
than this, and 1 think on the evening of May 20, I, in company 
with another young man, visited the woman’s house, where we 
spent the early part of the evening. I next saw her in the after- 
noon of June 4, when in company with her, I rode to Castleton in 
a carriage. On the evening of June 6 I accompanied her to Bar- 
num’s circus, which exhibited in Rutland on that evening, and 
afterward went home with her. This was the last time I ever saw 
the woman, either in her life or death. 
“On the occasion of our journey to Castleton, she voluntarily 
gave me a history of her past life, and cheerfully talked about her 
future hopes and expectations. She said that she was respectably 
connected, and had once been the lawful wife of a man bearing her 
name, who was a stonecutter by trade, and had been dead about six 
years. That shortly after her husband’s death she had formed the 
acquaintance of one John Sternes, who was at one time a tax-col- 
lector in Rutland, and then a resident of some Western city. That 
this man promised to, and did, support her in good style until he 
was obliged to leave Rutland hastily for some act of dishonesty or 
other. That her house was built and paid for by him, and that he 
had a wife and family living at Rutland at the time of their con- 
nection. She continued by saying that after his having left the 
place he had failed to further fulfil his agreement with her, and, 
consequently, she at once organized what she called a Young 
Ladies’ Social Club. She engaged two girls under disguise of 
boarders, and retained them until compelled to discharge them 
through fear of violence from her relatives, who had strongly op- 
posed her course. That since then she had lived mostly alone, re- 
ceiving patronage from no small number of married business men of 70 
Rutland. In speaking of these men, she seemed pleased in boasting 
of her power over them, and the trouble she could make between 
them and their unsuspecting wives, by an exposure of their intimacy 
with her. That the wives of these men had often passed her on the 
street with a look of perfect contempt, little suspecting the fact that 
many a time their husbands had been closely housed with her 
when they supposed them to have been miles away from home on 
business. Some of these men felt very bitter towards me when 
they found that I had also been in the woman’s company. But 
they should have remembered that the woman and myself were 
both single persons, and that however morally wrong our associa- 
tions may have been, they were not criminal, and theirs were. Mrs. 
Freeze spoke of a severe sickness she had experienced during the 
winter that had just past, and of the debts she had accumulated in 
consequence. That she was being closely pressed for the paj’ment 
of several small bills and hadn’t the money to paj' them. She 
mentioned a coal bill in particular which she had promised to set- 
tle the following day, and did not see how she was to do it without 
borrowing the money. I then lent her the money to pay it, with 
the understanding that she was to return it as soon as convenient, 
but, as her death occurred in one week from that day, I lost 
it all. 
“ On arriving home from Castleton, in the evening, Mrs. Freeze 
was hailed from a neighboring house, and told that a box had been 
left in their care for her until her return. This box proved to be 
a case of choice liquors that had been sent her by a wealthy citizen 
of Rutland, whose dealings with the woman are above suspicion. 
On opening her front door she discovered a written document lying 
upon the floor, that had evidently been shoved under the door 
while she was away. This she hastily snatched up, and requested 
me to read its contents to her. I did so, and was more than 
amazed at her confessing her inability to either read or write a 
single work. After taking leave of the woman on this occasion, I 
saw her but once more in her life, and that was on the evening of 
June 6th, when we attended the circus together. This evening I 
called at her house, about 7 o’clock, in fulfilment of a promise she 
had extorted from me a week earlier. On entering the house I 
found her in company with three strange men, who she introduced 
to me as her friends from Bellows Falls. After returning from 
the circus, we had been in her house but a very few minutes, when 
three more men called and were admitted. These being disposed 
of, their places were soon filled by the admission of two more 
men, making in all a number of nine men who had called on her 
inside of five hours, three of which were passed in the circus at 
that. When the last two men entered the house, I called for my 
hat, bade the woman good-night, and left her house fully* satisfied 
that it was a much frequented resort. During my short acquaint- 
ance with the woman there was never one unpleasant word ex- 
changed between us ; and when I was accused of her death some 
of her neighbors testified to her having always spoken of me to 
them as her friend. Mrs. Freeze was a small, spare woman, be- 
tween thirty and forty years of age, and would not have exceeded 71 
100 pounds in weight. She was of pleasing address, very talkative, 
and would sometimes use oaths that would make one’s hair stand 
on its end. She drank frequently, and was unquestionably a 
woman of very easy virtue. But, notwithstanding all her faults, 
1 believe her to have been a kind and generous-hearted woman, 
and a person wholly incapable of provoking any sane being to the 
enormous crime of taking her life. 
“ My unfortunate trip East occurred on the same day the woman is 
supposed to have been murdered. Her house was discovered to be 
on fire between 6.30 and 7 o’clock on that morning, and I proved 
on my trial that I left Rutland on the 4.30 morning train for Provi- 
dence, R.I. Now, according to the R. &B. Railroad time-table, 
and the regular running of the trains on that road, I was in 
Bellows Falls at the time her house was on fire, and could not 
possibly have had anything to do with the crime. I reached Bos- 
ton about 2.15 P.M., and immediatel}’upon the arrival of the train, 
and in compan}r with Mr. and Mrs. George Stewart, of Rutland, 
took a hack and crossed that part of the city which leads direct 
from the Fitchburg depot to the Boston & Providence depot. At 
the latter depot I took the first train going to Providence, which 
left Boston at 5 o’clock P.M., and arrived in the former place about 
6 o’clock, P.M., my business to Providence being if possible to 
secure employment with the American Screw Company or the 
Corliss Engine Works, both of which are well-known firms at that 
place. After consulting a few workmen who were in the employ 
of both these firms, as to my probable chance of getting a suitable 
job, I was discouraged by being told that these companies were 
then discharging some of their best and oldest experienced work- 
men. These men being members of the Workingmen’s Union, of 
which I was also a member, I knew if I couldn’t get work through 
their aid it would be useless for me to apply at the company’s 
office. I remained in Providence over night, and having no more 
than enough money to secure a respectable lodging for the night 
and to pay my fare home, I did not stop at a regular hotel, but at 
an ordinary lodging-house, where a room and bed only was to be 
had by paying seventy-five cents for the same before retiring for 
the night. I was not asked to register my name at this house, and 
in fact don’t think there was a register in the house, but was sim- 
ply assigned a good bed, where 1 slept well until morning. My 
supper and breakfast were taken at a restaurant near by the lodg- 
ing-house, at the cost of forty cents per meal, making the whole 
cost of my meals and lodging a dollar and fifty-five cents. Had I 
stopped at a first-class hotel, my name would have been written 
upon its register and enabled me to prove an alibi that would have 
upset all this misrepresentation and wrong. For it was claimed 
that Mrs. Freeze’s jewels were sold in Boston at the time I was in 
Providence; and as those Jews had sworn a false identity on me I 
was obliged to prove that I stopped in Providence on that night as 
I had stated. Now, this was a hard thing for me to do, as the fol- 
lowing facts will show. In the first place, I never saw any but 
strange faces from the moment I separated from Mr. and Mrs. 
Stewart, at the Boston & Providence depot, until my return to 72 
Fitchburg on the following day. Secondly, I did not take a single 
number of any house or place I had entered while in Providence. 
Third, Providence has a population of nearly 100,000 inhabitants, 
and is a city I had never been in before. Fourth, while on my 
journey I had never dreamed that such an accusation awaited my 
return home, for God above all others knows that my trip had been 
contemplated at least one month before it was taken, and that no 
dishonesty attended it. Fifth, and last, when arrested and ac- 
cused of the unfortunate woman’s death, I had only my wearing 
apparel in general and five dollars in money to my name. Had I 
then the one-sixth part of the money expended by the prosecution 
in effecting my foul conviction, I haven’t a doubt but what I would 
have cleared myself as honorably as ever man was acquitted in any 
court of justice on earth. This I did not have, and consequently 
was obliged to submit to the gross injustice I knew was being 
done me. 
As I have said before, m3’ journey to the city of Providence 
was made on the 9th day of June, and after stopping over night, 
I started for home on the 10th, arriving at Boston at 12 o’clock, 
M., where I wras obliged to wait until 5 P.M., for the first train 
.for Vermont. My time between trains at this place was occupied 
in visiting the Charlestown Navy Yard, its machine-shops, ships 
of war, and so forth, all of which were of great interest to me, 
because of my being a machinist by trade, and also having served 
in the United States navy during the rebellion. I left Charles- 
town Railroad Station for Rutland at 5 o’clock in the evening. 
At Fitchburg I met a 3’oung man from Rutland, who was also 
returning home on the same train with me. This man first in- 
formed me of Mrs. Freeze’s death b}' reading an account of the 
same from the Boston Journal. At Cuttingsville, a station ten or 
twelve miles south of Rutland, the train on which I was returning 
was boarded by two officers from Rutland, who arrested and 
searched my person in the car. The search was very closely made, 
but resulted in finding nothing but my railway ticket and $5.65 in 
money. A handcuff was then placed on my right wrist, and on 
the arrival of the train at Rutland, I was taken to jail and locked 
up for examination. My photograph was then taken to Boston by 
these reward-seekers, and shown to the Jew pawnbrokers before 
the}r had ever seen or tried to identify me. My picture was taken 
in a light-colored, summer business suit, and when these men were 
brought to identify, I was not allowed to appear before them in 
any other suit of clothes than the same in which my photograph 
was taken. The onty public identity made took place in the Town 
Hall at Rutland, about a week after 1113- arrest, and was conducted 
in the following manner: The three so-called witnesses, who had 
been brought from Boston, were taken to the hall wheie nearly 
three hundred people had congregated to witness the identity. 
These men were then seated on a side seat at the left-hand en- 
trance to the hall. I was then compelled to walk from the jail, 
through the streets, to the hall, handcuffed, and between two offi- 
cers. A large crowd followed in the rear until we reached the 
hall-door, where, in the presence of the so-called witnesses, the 73 
cuffs were taken from my hands, and I requested to take a seat 
between five men, all of whom had on dark clothes, and were at 
least ten years older than myself. I was seated in the centre of 
these five men, and at my back stood one of the officers who had 
brought me from the jail. This dunce stood there until the pre- 
tended wrath of the reward-seekers was raised to such a pitch that 
he was seized by the arm and dragged away by them. The Bos- 
ton men were then, one by one, led past us by a justice of the 
peace, and asked to point out the man they claimed to have seen 
in Boston. Each one of them pointed to me, but not as the man 
they may have seen in Boston, but rather the man whose photo- 
graph was shown them in that city. 
“This pretended identUy was a complete sham, and every fair- 
minded person who witnessed it on that day knows it to have been 
both a farce and an injustice. But this was a very mild transac- 
tion when compared with the ridiculous attempts, or rather pre- 
tensions, at identity which took place at the jail under the sole 
direction of the two scheming reward-seekers and so-called detec- 
tives, who have won popular praise for the villanous work they 
have done under the disguise of law. It has always appeared to 
me that had these men been honest they would have brought these 
Jews to Rutland without first having shown them my picture and 
talked over the crime with which I was accused. I was in safe 
custody at the time and could see nothing that warranted their 
carrying my picture about the country and exhibiting it to such as 
they were able to induce to swear to anything they might ask of 
them. One of these so-called detectives was better acquainted 
with Mrs. Freeze than any other man in Rutland, and employed 
three noted bad women, who were not strangers to the unfortunate 
woman, to appear against me on my trial. Another witness pro- 
duced by him was an ex-convict from Boston. Still another of the 
prosecution’s witnesses now languishes under a four years’ sentence 
in this State Prison for the crime of adultery. So much is known 
of these witnesses, and time will undoubtedly prove the character 
of the rest. In connection with these witnesses I also desire to 
call attention to the fact that the prosecution claimed my convic- 
tion wholly on the testimony of the Boston Jews. In his charge 
to the jury, Judge Wheeler said that the finding of Mrs. Freeze’s 
property in Boston, and in ray possession, as these Jews had testi- 
fied to, and unexplained by me, was sufficient to convict. This 
was asking an explanation not in my power to offer, for the means 
by which her things reached Boston was as foreign to me as was 
the •'.eans by which she came to her death. Now, every intelli- 
gent person must know that a Jew does not recognize an oath 
administered in our Christian form as being sacred, or even bind- 
ing. The only form and oath they regard as sacred is that which 
is administered to them by a rabbi; and in this case the oath was 
administered to them in our regularly established form. The ques- 
tion arising from this fact is simply this : Is it right to admit in a 
case where a person’s life depends upon the actual truth, the evi- 
dence of men who have never regarded our Christian form of oath 
as being in any way binding on their conscience before either God 74 
or man ? “ Our State laws declare that every person accused of a 
capital crime shall have a fair and impartial trial.” “It also de- 
clares that the accused is entitled to and shall have the full benefit 
of all doubt as to guilt.” Tins I understand as meaning a fair 
chance for the liberty and life of the accused. I asked no more 
than this, and that it was not granted me every fair-minded man 
who reads the following solemn facts will readily see. 
“ Be it understood that Mrs. Freeze’s house was located in the 
outskirts of the village of Rutland, or at the extreme end of For- 
est street. The distance between her house and the Berwick 
House, where I boarded, lacks a trifle of being a full mile. Now, 
then, on my trial I proved, by the best witnesses that can be found 
in the State, that on the morning of June 9, which is the same 
morning on which this woman is supposed to have been murdered, 
I came out of the Berwick House at precisely 3.45 o’clock, and in 
company with another man walked to the depot, where I ate break- 
fast at the restaurant with the conductor of the train on which I 
left Rutland for Providence at 4.30 sharp. I offered undisputed 
proof of this, and was backed by the conductor, baggage-master, 
and a brakeraan of the train. I could have produced any amount 
of proof on this point, had more been necessary. Now, on that 
morning this woman’s house was discovered to be on fire at be- 
tween 6.30 and 7 o’clock, which was the very hour at which I was 
in Bellows Falls, a distance of between forty and fifty miles from 
Rutland, and the scene of the fire. This the prosecution admitted 
as a fact. It was further shown on the trial that the woman’s 
house was built on the light balloon-frame plan, and that the fire 
had originated in her bedroom upstairs, which was located in close 
proximity to the roof. There was no fire in the lower part of the 
house when the roof was discovered to be on fire, and the fire up- 
stairs seemed to be wholly confined to her sleeping apartment. 
The floor of this room was heavily carpeted, and the room well 
furnished with light, combustible furniture, all of which could not 
fail of burning as rapidly as the fire reached it. Now, if Mrs. 
Freeze was really murdered, as it is claimed she was, I believe that 
the party who burned her house was the same who murdered her; 
and as I am foully branded with the vile crime, I, in the name of 
reason and justice, ask how it were possible that I could have been 
the perpetrator of this dastardly crime when I was so many miles 
away from where it occurred at the time? I repeat, how could it 
be possible? Just think of it! By the very best of proof I have 
proved my whereabouts three and a quarter long hours before her 
house was discovered to have been on fire. And had I been the 
author of the deed, three-quarters of an hour more must necessa- 
rily be added to the above time to have allowed me to reach my 
boarding place before a quarter to four o’clock, which time the 
proof of my whereabouts commenced. This, it will be seen, would 
have set the hour of firing her house at 3 o’clock, if it had been 
done by me. Now, does any sane man believe that it would take 
four hours for a fire to burn through an ordinary wood roof house? 
Or does any one think that it would even take one hour? Every- 
body knows that a four hours’ fire has often consumed almost an 75 
entire street of buildings, and, if it will do that, what would be 
left of a small cottage house in one-quarter of that time? One 
more fact in connection with the above, and then I am done with 
this part. And that is, it will readily be seen that if I had been 
the perpetrator of this enormous crime it would have been an im- 
possibility for me to have made m}r way through the largely popu- 
lated streets of Rutland to my boarding-place without being met 
or seen by some one or another. It is broad daylight in the month 
of June at that hour in the morning, and a time when man}' peo- 
ple are stirring about, especially those citizens of the place who 
are more or less connected with railroads and hotels. 
“ I have said that death has no terror for me, which is true ; but 
at the same time I would have no one understand that this in any 
way alleviates the painful thought of being forced to suffer an ig- 
nominious and premature death, as an atonement for the death of a 
human being whom God knows I had never harmed. All the unpleas- 
antness arising from confinement of body during the long and 
weary months that have past, sinks into utter nothingness when 
compared with the constant thought of the terrible slander and 
falsehoods which were published in the newspapers before my case 
ever reached a lawful tribunal. It seemed to me, as it must have 
appeared to every one who knows me personally, that I was tried 
and pronounced guilty by the public press before the course of the 
law could be brought to bear on the case. Now, I did not think 
this fair, nor even right, for every person accused of any offence 
against the law is supposed to be innocent until proved guilty in a 
court of justice. At least the law so declares. To show the ad- 
vantage taken of ra}' unpleasant condition as an accused, I deem 
it my duty to herewith append the heading of three articles, pub- 
lished in the Rutland papers shortly after ray arrest, which were in 
substance as follows : A gentleman from Troy, N.Y., visited the 
jail Sunday morning, where he saw and recognized John P. Ph#ir, 
who is under arrest for the murder of Anna E. Freeze, of Rutland, 
as being the man who, a year ago, murdered a woman and two 
children in Troy, N.Y., and afterwards threw them into the canal 
in that place. He was arrested, tried for the crime, and acquitted 
on the ground of there being no proof to sustain the charge. It 
is said that this J. P. Phair, who has so recently become notori- 
ous as the murderer of Anna E. Freeze, once attempted to decoy the 
cashier of the Vergenues bank out on a certain evening with a 
large sum of money, for the purpose of waylaying and robbing 
him of the same, etc. This J. P. Phair is supposed to have been 
the person who, some years ago, shot at one H. C. Thompson, of 
Yergennes, one night as he was returning home from his place of 
business; motive, to kill and rob him of his money, etc. Now, 
the solemn truth is, these were the most malicious and wicked 
falsehoods that human tongue could utter concerning me, and I 
defy the world to prove any one of them true, or that I was ever 
arrested on such a charge. It was undoubtedly the work of the 
reward-seekers, and in ray mind it bore but one unmistakable 
meaning on the face of it; and that was, to so inflame the public 
mind against me that an impartial trial could not be had. Previous 76 
to these publications, there was also published a full account of 
the terrible means by which the unfortunate woman is supposed to 
have come by her death, and to which wras attached a wood-cut 
photograph of the deceased and one of my own, representing me 
as her alleged murderer. There was not a single false statement 
made by the press about me that was ever after retracted by their 
authors, nor did I arraign them for their infamous work. I be- 
lieved then, as I do now, that they themselves will eventually reap 
the fruits of the wrong intended for me. 
“ The fact that I had ten years previous to this been sent to 
prison for the offence I have described in the opening of my state- 
ment, was also published, with comments purporting that this fact 
alone showed that I was a person likely to commit the vile crime 
of which I am accused, in a word, every conceivable unfair 
means were resorted to by these so-called detectives and reward- 
seekers for the purpose of degrading my character in the estima- 
tion of the people and in misrepresenting me in the sight of the 
law. This malicious and strange work was all done before I had 
even a hearing before a court of justice, and while 1 was confined 
at Rutland in a brutal, solitary dungeon, in which a single ray of 
daylight had never penetrated during my confinement therein. 
The only light I had during the seven months I was forced to 
remain in this place was an ordinary oil lamp, used both day and 
night until my eyesight was so nearly ruined that I am obliged to 
use glasses while writing these lines. There were no means of 
ventilation in the dungeon save through an ordinary-sized iron-door, 
which was perforated with numerous three-inch square holes. I 
was allowed no exercise whatever outside of this den, which was 
so small that the healthiest person living could not pace it ten 
minutes without creating a severe headache. Every stranger who 
approached the door of the dungeon during ray close imprison- 
ment there, was cautioned b}r the reward-seekers to be careful, as 
it contained a great and desperate criminal. The object sought by 
this kind of representation must be so apparent to every person 
who has known me from my childhood up, that it is hardly neces- 
sary for me to add that it was as ridiculous as it was malicious. 
It is all these things which in part constitute the meaning of that 
part of my statement where I have said that my counsel defended 
me to the best of their ability, under circumstances wholly unfavor- 
able and discouraging. So much has been said about my being a 
desperate character, that I cannot feel justified in losing this op- 
portunity of asking my adversaries on what ground they have 
advanced this infamous claim. Is there a single person to be 
found in any community in which I have moved during my life, 
who can come forward and truthfully say that I have ever laid a 
violent hand on a man, woman, or child, during my whole life? Is 
there a school-mate who can say I have ever abused or quarrelled 
with him? Is there one who ever knew me to be a drinking char- 
acter? Or is there one who can say he ever saw me in any street 
or other rowdyism? If there be a single person who can truthfully 
give any but a negative answer to the above questions, then I don’t 
know where he can be found. I have never fought any man in my 77 
life except the common enemy of our country during the late 
rebellion. And for a record of my conduct and loyalty to the 
cause, while serving in the navy at that time, I proudly refer to 
the brave and gallant officers under whom I served, and to the fact 
that I came forth from the contest without a scar on ray body. 
“ As to the conduct of my earlier life, I admit with much shame 
that it was not in some respects as it should have been. But after 
having paid the full penalty which the law inflicts upon such dis- 
honesty, I thought it very uncharitable in my accusers to bring up 
the settled past for capital on which to brand me as a bad char- 
acter. A misstep in the past is beyond mortal power to wholly 
recover; and it often looms up as a monster before its victim at 
times in his life when he would give his all if it had never been 
taken. It wfas in this unhappy condition, the truth of my having 
taken such a damaging past misstep, found me when accused of 
taking a human life. It was also in this dreadful fact all my fears 
of a partial judgment were centred, and I feel that they were fully 
realized. Never in all life did Iso fully understand the meaning 
and necessity of a pure and spotless character, as I did when on 
trial for my life. 1 then saw its true value and my reckless mis- 
take in not having cultivated that which is certainty the most 
priceless jewel that can be possessed by any young man whose 
personal character may be assailed. My conduct in associating 
with Mrs. Freeze previous to her death did not add anything 
favorable to my character, in a moral sense, and I saw it only when 
it was too late to prevent the unsuspecting public exposure of our 
acquaintance which followed her mysterious death. Had I even 
dreamed that so serious and sudden change was to take place in 
the woman’s life, I am sure nothing on earth could ever have in- 
duced me to enter her house. But, as it was, I suspected nothing 
unusual, and went out in public with her freely to my shame and 
great sorrow. Sorrow, did I say? Ah ! that were but a faint ex- 
pression of the real torture which I feel for having run the risk I 
did in associating with the woman whom I ought to have felt far 
above. But, notwithstanding all this, I have never been without 
the full consciousness of knowing that the unfortunate woman was 
never the recipient of anything but kindness from my hands during 
our acquaintance. And it is this comforting conscience which has 
been my strength and support from the first, and cannot fail to 
sustain and comfort me to the last. Had I been in any way guilty 
of the woman’s death, my duty to my God and fellow-men would 
have been perfectly plain, and my plea entered in accordance with 
the truth. There would have been no mystery enshrouding the 
crime, for I should then have known the end from the beginning, 
and that my only hope of God’s forgiveness and pity by the people 
lay in a full confession, which no earthly temptation could have 
induced me to withhold. When in my innocence and standing up 
for ray rights as a citizen and man, which no act of mine had for- 
feited, I was said by the uncharitable to have been of a stern and 
stubborn disposition, and would probably walk to the gallows car- 
rying with me the secrets of the dead. Now, the author of this 
little sensational speech is well known to me, and I am sure that 78 
his personal knowledge of me and m37 disposition never with truth 
justified him in making such a remark. He had something to say, 
and, it probably being easier for him to speak evil than good, he 
did so, and sent his little speech away to Boston to be printed in 
the Journal. I wish to ask this, and all such persons, what other 
course there is left for the falsety accused to pursue than that of 
manfully standing up for the rights which lie knows are being 
wrongfully wrenched from him? 
“ As to the matter of my execution, it is impossible for me to say 
that it will not take place at the appointed time. Were I guilty I 
would pray that it might, for it would be greatly .preferable to a 
life of imprisonment. But innocent as 1 am I will never en- 
courage such a disposition of my life, but rather will I leave the 
responsibility in either event with those who have taken it upon 
themselves. If my life is prolonged I hope the Almight}7 will 
speedily establish my innocence and thereb}7 enable me to achieve, 
through my great misfortune, one of the grandest triumphs over 
human injustice that could possibly come to a wronged being in 
this world. In the event of m3' execution there will be nothing 
said b}r me that is not herein stated, and any report to the con- 
trary will be utterly false. Many will probabty ask why I had 
neglected petitioning the recent Legislative Assembly for a re- 
prieve. M37 answer is simpty because I was too poor to employ a 
proper person to present my condition before the honorable body. 
I am now in my twenty-ninth 3rear of age, have a most excellent, 
but aged and widowed mother and three affectionate sisters, who 
are loved and respected by all who know them. Their feelings 
concerning ray unfortunate condition can, perhaps, be better im- 
agined than I can describe them. What I have said about my 
enemies I have said with all the charity a wronged man can bestow 
upon those whom he has every reason to think have sought his life 
through malignity, and for the gain of a few paltry dollars. I 
trust that I have been gentlemanly and kind to everybody during 
my affliction, and that m37 misfortune has thus far been borne with 
Christian fortitude and resignation to the divine will of Him in 
whom I trust. And to Almighty God, the maker of heaven and 
earth, to him who knoweth the secrets of all hearts, do I now most 
solemnly appeal, in this the hour of my extremity to hear me, and 
hear witness to the truth, that I am innocent of the crime for which 
I stand convicted. And as lam innocent or guilt 37, so may he 
deal with my soul in the day of judgment and in eternity. 
JOHN P. PHAIR.” 
The outcome of the publication was a scene of exciting and 
dramatic interest. At about eleven o’clock Friday, the attention 
of one M. D. Downing, a business man of Boston, was called to 
the matter by a messenger in his office, who said the Globe had out 
a flaming bulletin, and said that Vermont was going to hang an 
innocent man that day. As Downing originally came from Ver- 
mont he sent for a paper, and amid the few remnants of his busi- 
ness which the rain and the hard times had left him, began at the 
beginning and read the statement carefully until he reached the 79 
description of the trip to Providence, and he then sat spell-bound 
in his chair. He remembered distinctly that about the time 
alluded to by Phair he had been to Providence, and returning to 
Boston on the noon train he sat with a man nearly throughout the 
whole journey, who said that he was a mechanic ; that he came 
from Rutland, Vermont, and had been to Providence to get work 
from a screw company there, but as he was unsuccessful he was 
returning to Rutland again. Mr. Downing referred to a memoran- 
dum book of that year, which he had kept, and found that the date 
of his trip to Providence was June 10, 1874. Thinking it 
extremely improbable that two men had come from such a distant 
and small city as Rutland on the same day, had gone to the same 
place on the same errand, and had returned by the same train, he 
concluded that Phair was in all probability the man. But what 
should he do? It was then high noon, and in less than two hours 
Phair would be hung. He rushed to the office of the Chief of 
Police and besought his advice, and he was told that he had better 
telegraph the Governor of Vermont immediately. He then con- 
sulted the manager of the Globe, and he concurred in the advice of 
the Chief of Police. Both men rushed down State street to the 
office of the Western Union Telegraph Company, and the follow- 
ing telegrams were immediately written : 
Boston, April 6, 1877. 
To Governor Fairbanks, Montpelier, Vt. : 
I think I saw and conversed with the man who is to be executed to-day, on 
the train coming from Providence to Boston, June 10th, 1874. I send by- 
advice of Chief of Police. 
M. D. DOWNING, 
50 School street, Boston. 
To Governor Fairbanks, Montpelier, Vt.: 
Mr. Downing’s story about Phair seems to be worthy of delay for investiga- 
tion. 
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, 
Manager of the “ Globe.” 
The Superintendent of the telegraph office took a deep interest 
in the matter, and attempted to despatch the telegrams immediately, 
but it was found that the Montpelier operator was at dinner. 
Then all the offices of the Western Union Company in Vermont 
were signalled to ascertain, if possible, where the governor was. 
No word came from the governor, and at one o’clock the following 
telegram was sent: 
To the Sheriff at Prison, Windsor, Vi. : 
A reliable man here states, after reading Phair’s statement, that he is pretty 
certain he met Phair on train from Providence to Boston, June 10, 1874, and 
thinks he can identify him. The man he met was a large man; said he Avas 
from Rutland, and had applied to screw company at Providence for work. Had 
you not better communicate with governor before hanging? 
CHARLES H. TAYLOR. 
Manager of the “ Globe.” 
Finally, about 1.15 o’clock, word was received that the gover- 80 
nor was in the telegraph office at St. Johnsbury, Vermont, and 
had received the despatches. Meantime the preparations for 
Phair’s execution at Windsor were being perfected. The convict 
had given up all hope. His last appeal for executive clemency 
had been heard and denied. Crowds of people gathered about 
the prison seeking admission. Those whose duty it was to witness 
the sad spectacle gained an entrance. The solemn thud of the 
hammer, in the construction of the gallows, had ceased. The con- 
demned man, arrayed in black for the scaffold, was attended by 
his spiritual advisers and a few faithful friends, who administered 
to him such consolation and support as were in their power. All 
hope had been abandoned. The execution was appointed to take 
place between one and four, P.M., and the hands of the clock had 
already trespassed upon the first fatal limit of the time within 
which the tableau of death was to occur. The few spectators, 
some of whom had come from a morbid curiosity, some from dut}', 
and some to witness the death which their oaths had contributed 
to bring about, awaited, with pale faces, the appearance of the 
doomed man and the beginning of the sad rites. The sheriff had 
arranged to spring the trap of death at precisely two. One thirty- 
six came, and the hangman with it, but, miraculously to the con- 
vict, brought life instead of death. He handed a telegram to a 
by-stander, which proved to be from the governor, respiting the 
condemned man. The reprieve was as follows : 
TELEGRAPHIC REPRIEVE. 
St. Johnsbury, Yt., April 6, 1877. 
To S. W Stimson, Sheriff of Windsor Co., Windsor, Vermont: 
Delay execution of John P. Phair until Friday, May 4, next. Written re- 
prieve till that day will be sent by mail. 
Signed, HORACE FAIRBANKS, 
Governor. 
WRITTEN REPRIEVE. 
Executive Chamber, 
St. Johnsburt, Yt., April 6, 1877. 
S. W. Stimson, Sheriff of Windsor County : 
You are hereby directed to postpone the execution of John P. Phair until 
the fourth day of May next, between the hours often (10) o’clock, A.M., and 
two (2) P.M., at which time you will execute the warrant issued to you hy 
the Supreme Court. 
HORACE FAIRBANKS, 
Governor. 
The scene that ensued was beyond all description, and can never 
be forgotten by those who witnessed it. The man himself, who 
had previously borne up unflinchingly, fainted dead away. Almost 
universal joy was expressed among those present. One man, in- 
deed, who had been chiefly instrumental in securing Phair’s con- 
viction and received a large reward therefor, on learning that the 
governor had sent a reprieve, exclaimed, between clenched teeth 
and white lips, “ God d—n him ! ” and he was summarily ejected 
from the prison, to the great delight of all present. 
It was impossible to present the alleged new evidence to the 81 
Court, as the statute provided that no new trial should be granted 
on the ground of newly discovered evidence, unless the application 
should be made within two j'ears after final judgment. More than 
two years had elapsed after Phairwas sentenced. The only relief, 
therefore, was to secure a reprieve until after the next session of 
the Legislature which occurred in October, 1878, and if an amend- 
ment of the law relating to new trials was granted the evidence 
might then be presented to the Court. A diligent effort and close 
investigation were made by Phair’s few friends, many petitions 
were circulated and signed praying for an extension of time to 
the convict, and as a result Governor Fairbanks granted a second 
reprieve, as follows: 
FINAL REPRIEVE. 
Executive Chamber, 
St. Johnsbury, Yt., May 2, 1877. 
S. IF. Stimson, Sheriff of Windsor County : 
By the authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Vermont, you 
are hereby commanded to delay the execution of the sentence of death upon 
John P. Phair, now in State Prison at Windsor, until the first Friday of April, 
A.D. 1879, between the same hours of the day in the warrant which you now 
hold for your execution. 
HORACE FAIRBANKS, 
Governor. 
CHAPTER 111. 
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS.—THE PETITION FOR A 
NEW TRIAL. 
An application was made by Phair’s friends to the session of the 
Vermont Legislature of 1878 for some law that would either grant 
Phair a new trial outright, or would confer upon the Supreme 
Court jurisdiction over his case. The application was based upon 
many petitions of citizens numerously signed, among them a peti- 
tion signed by John G. Whittier and 660 others, and upon refer- 
ence to the subject by the message of the governor, a hearing 
was given on the 24th of October by the Joint Judiciary Com- 
mittee, over which Hon. Henry C. Belden presided by virtue of his 
position as chairman of the Senate Committee. The petitioners 
were represented by Col. W. G. Yeazey, Charles B. Eddy, and 
Samuel W. McCall, and the State by ex-Gov. Stewart and Mar- 
tin G. Evarts. 
Mr. McCall opened the case for the respondent, detailing the 
object of the application and then made an elaborate review of the 
newly-discovered evidence. As a review of the new evidence will 
be given in the arguments upon the petition for a new trial, it is 
unnecessary to publish this argument. Ex-Gov. Stewart replied 
for the State, followed by Mr. Evarts and Mr. Eddy for the peti- 
tioners. It was finally agreed that a general law be reported 
applicable to the case. The law, that was finally passed, provided 
that the application be made to two judges, after the statutory 
limit of two years had passed, and these judges if they deemed the 82 
evidence important could order the petition to be filed and referred 
to the Supreme Court, full Bench, and could issue a stay if execu- 
tion was impending. As the case attracted to a great degree the 
attention of the Legislature from its extraordinary nature, and 
because more than 20,000 petitioners had prayed the Assembly 
for some relief, and as the convict was and had been entirely 
without means to prepare his defence, a bill was introduced into 
the Senate to place in the hands of Phair’s Vermont counsel a sum, 
not more than S2OO, to assist in preparing his case. Mr. Carrigan 
appeared before the Joint Committee on Claims and advocated the 
measure. The Committee reported it unanimously to each branch, 
and it passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. When it 
came into the House, however, although it was advocated by 
Judge Poland, it wras defeated by a decisive vote mainly through 
the opposition of N. T. Sprague, of Brandon, an influential mem- 
ber, and because many members were personally adverse to any 
relief, in any form, being accorded the convict, particularly the 
members from Rutland and Addison Counties. 
A petition for a new trial in pursuance of the new law was pre- 
sented by Phair’s counsel, Col. W. G. Veazey, Charles B. Eddy, 
and Samuel W. McCall to Judges Royce and Redfield, at Mont- 
pelier, Jan. 17, 1879. After a short hearing the Court decided 
that the petitioner should be permitted to go to the full bench. 
Royce, J., said they did not pronounce upon the sufficiency of 
the evidence, but there was sufficient evidence to warrant its 
presentation to the full bench. The petition was made returnable 
to the January term of the Rutland County Supreme Court, and 
the case came up for hearing on Monday, Feb. 4, and occupied the 
attention of the Court two days. There were present, Ch. J. 
Pierpont, Judges Barrett, Royce, and Powers, ex-Gov. John C. 
Stewart, Hon. E. J. Ormsbee, and State’s Attorney Lawrence 
for the State, and Col. W. G. Veazey, Hon. C. B. Eddy, Samuel 
W. McCall, and D. E. Nicholson for petitioners. The evidence 
at the trial, and on the first petition for a new trial, was read. 
EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON FIRST PETITION FOR A NEW 
TRIAL. 
Joseph White. —Reside in Rutland ; am a machinist; knew John 
P. Phair well in 1874 ; attended Barnum’s circus at Brandon, June 8, 
1874 ; saw John P. Phair in Brandon three times that da}r; the first 
time I saw him he was standing on the sidewalk, within twenty feet 
of me ; I was in a buggy riding by ; saw him again as 1 was driving 
near the stone bridge near the Scale Factory ; Phair was crossing 
the street; called the attention of the young lady I wras with to 
him ; last time I saw him was after tea time ; the train for Rutland 
left while I was at supper; drove back with my team to Rutland ; 
went to my room at Berwick House little after one o’clock in the 
morning ; Phair’s room was opposite mine in a wing ; I saw a light 
in his room that morning ; saw a person in the room ; thought 
Phair had returned to Rutland from the circus ; thought it was 83 
Phair in his room ; think so now ; told Oliver J. Cain a few days 
after the circus that I saw Phair in Brandon at the circus, Monday, 
June 8, 1874. 
Charles Leavitt. —Reside in Rutland ; knew Mrs. Freeze for 
about two years and six months; boarded on same street she 
lived on; saw Mrs. Freeze in Root’s grocery many times; saw 
Mrs. Freeze the evening of June 8, 1874, about eleven o’clock, 
in a hack with a man driving toward her house ; the hack drove by 
me near a gaslight at the crossing; could see her plainly; the man 
was not John P. Phair; he was not known to me; he had on straw 
hat with a black band ; the hack drove, I think, to Mrs. Freeze’s 
house ; used to live in East Cambridge, and worked for Mr. Cailiff; 
knew his son Arlich Cailiff; he was a dissipated man; Arlich 
Cailiff had served a term of years in the Massachusetts State 
Prison ; this same Arlich Cailiff swore against Phair at the trial; 
he swore under the name Isaac Smith ; Arlich Cailiff saw me on 
the street and asked me not to expose him; I told Mr. Walch 
about him but he did not tell Phair’s counsel in time for the trial. 
Samuel S. Bond. Reside in Rutland, and was there June, 
1874 ; was with Charles A. Leavitt the evening of June 8, 1874 ; 
saw Mrs. Freeze that evening in a hack riding with a strange man ; 
knew John P. Phair; the man with Mrs. Freeze was not John P. 
Phair; knew Mrs. Freeze by sight; had seen her many times; 
boarded/on the same street she lived on. 
Marshall D. Downing. (Examined by Col. Yeazey). —My 
age is 32 ; business, jobbing and manufacturing patent novelties, 
etc.; place of business, No. 52 School street, Boston ; reside at 
No. 4 Kendall street, Boston; first came here in 1863; then en- 
listed in United States service, and since return have lived in 
Boston most of the time; been in business for myself for three 
years ; previous to that worked for others in furniture business ; 
have worked for Daniels, Kendall, & Co., Braham, Shaw, & Co., in 
same block, and Haley, Morse, & Boyden ; was born in East 
Brookfield, Vermont; lived in Williamstown and Montpelier ; en- 
listed in June, 1862, in Company I, 11th Regiment; went to 
Providence morning of June 10, 1874, and returned in the fore- 
noon of same day to Boston ; on entering train for Boston at 
Providence went into smoking-car; smoked a short time ; then 
went into passenger car, and sat by side of a gentleman unknown 
to me ; entered into conversation with the man, of which I do not re- 
member all; but I remember he said he had been to Providence 
to get work of the American Screw Co.; he said he hailed from 
Rutland, Vermont; I told him I was a Vermonter, and think I 
told him what part of the State I came from ; he said he did not 
get work, and was going back to Rutland to follow his trade as a 
machinist; I then made my business known, and told him I was 
about to employ agents to sell goods for me, and that I should like 
a good agent in Rutland ; he did not seem disposed to take an 
agency if he could find business at his own trade ; I remember of 
asking him how large a place Rutland was; and we talked about 
the quarries in Rutland and Roxbury, Vermont; this is all the 
conversation I can distinctly remember; the rest was of a general 84 
nature ; lam quite positive names were not given; do not know 
exact time we left Providence, but think it was between 10 and 11 
o’clock in the forenoon, and we arrived at Boston about noon, for 
I went to my house to dinner ; I do not know as I ever saw that 
man before or since; he was rather a thick-set man, with frank, 
open countenance ; a good man to talk with ; had on a light suit; 
cannot say about his pants, or about his height, for I do not re- 
member seeing him standing up ; he was of a somewhat dark com- 
plexion, and apparently between twenty-five and thirty years old ; 
at that time I was not accustomed to travelling much ; had not 
been out of town more than two or three times that spring ; re- 
member the date, because it was the first day that I opened my 
office, and by a memorandum that I made of the trip, according to 
my custom ; my attention was first called to this matter by read- 
ing Phair’s statement in the Boston Globe. 
A 3’oung man who is in m37 office came in at nearty eleven 
o’clock on that morning, and said that the “ Globe” had come out 
with a flaming bulletin, sa3?ng, “ Is Vermont to hang an innocent 
man to-da3'?” I sent out for a paper, and read the statement; 
the two clauses in the statement that especially attracted my atten- 
tion were, that he went to Providence to obtain work of the 
American Screw and that he came from Rutland, Ver- 
mont ; I remembered having a conversation with a man on train 
from Providence to Boston about that time. I referred to my 
books and found that I returned on that very da3T. It occurred to 
me that the coincidence was a strange one, and I first went to 
Chief of Police Savage, and told him about the matter. Never 
had an3r communication with Phair; never had any conversation 
about the murder of Anna Freeze ; never had any conversation or 
communication with one Carrigan who obtained Phair’s statement 
for publication ; never read trial of Phair, or any particulars ; saw 
a likeness at Oit3r Hall, April 6, 1877, said to be of Phair. It 
was handed me by Col. Taylor; think he asked me if I ever saw 
that likeness before, or if that looked like the man I saw; he did 
not know whose picture it was when it was handed to me. I saw 
no mark on the picture, or name ; had no means of knowing whose 
picture it was. 1 made the remark to Mr. Ta3Tlor that that looked 
like the man whom I met; thought it was the same man ; thought 
it was a good likeness of the man I met; according to ni3T best 
recollection that’s wdiat I would say. Detective Ham and Col. 
Taylor were present when I saw the likeness ; several others were 
in the room. Don’t remember that man I met said when he left 
Rutland, but I think he used these words: “I went down to 
Providence 3resterda3‘l know of no scheme to prove Phair in- 
nocent. In answer to further interrogatories by E. J. Ormsbee, 
witness stated, “ Have read ‘Boston Herald’ and ‘Globe.’ Have 
been beseiged by persons questioning me about what Phair claimed 
about the question. Have conversed with none except Col. Tay- 
lor and Mr. Carrigan, and but little with Carrigan.” 
Think 1 have told all details and circumstances connected with 
the meeting of this man. Examination continued the following 
day. Had two purposes of going to Providence; went to see a 85 
man about a patent, also to get the goods to sell; went also to 
see if ray goods had been sold in Providence ; had samples of 
goods with me at the time ; went into several places of business ; 
the person I went to see was a Mr. Harding: went from Boston 
on the morning train, and came back, leaving Providence, I think, 
between 10 and 11 in the forenoon ; I know that I then thought 
the train arrived about noon ; have travelled considerable ; did not 
travel much in the summer of 1874. 
Milo C. Perry. Reside in Elizabethtown, New York ; in June, 
1874, visited John P. Phair in Rutland jail; W. G. Yeazey, counsel, 
was with me; Phair gave an account of his whereabouts during 
Providence trip ; asked Phair the following question: “ Can you 
not recall to mind some person you saw on that Providence trip until 
you got back to Boston?” Phair said that he could not remember of 
seeing anybody he knew ; said he met and conversed with a man on 
the Providence train for Boston ; the man sat in the same seat with 
him ; the man said he was from Vermont, where he had lived for 
some years ; Phair stated that no names were exchanged, although 
conversed quite freely for some distance. 
Col. W. G. Yeazey. Live in Rutland ; was counsel for John P. 
Phair ; have had several interviews with Phair ; gave me substan- 
tially the same account as published in his statement; urged Phair 
to have his case investigated ; said he had no means; went to 
Providence and searched for lodging-house and restaurant described 
by Phair; never had been in Providence before; was not able to 
find the buildings described by Phair ; had no time to rightly pre- 
pare case; was appointed by the Court, with Judge Dunton, to 
defend Phair; had no time or means to secure detective or other 
investigation of his statement; Phair explained to the Court that 
he was destitute of means to prepare his case ; Judge Dunton, dur- 
ing the trial, was taken sick ; Hon. D. E. Nicholson was appointed 
by the Court to assist in the defence; counsel intended to make 
detective investigation but had no time ; all the additional evidence 
which petition now produces was at time of former trial unknown. 
Edward C. Cardigan.— Am correspondent of Boston “ Journal ” 
and student at law; in spring, 1877, was member of senior class 
Dartmouth College and manager of College Glee Club; March 26, 
1877, went to Windsor, Vermont, with glee club to give concert; 
while there visited State Prison ; saw for first time John P. Phair; 
following day, by Phair’s request, visited prison with glee club and 
gave sacred concert; arranged with Phair for the publication of 
what is known as his “dying statement”; agreed not to publish 
statement till Saturday, April 7, 1877, next day, after Phair’s ex- 
ecution ; was to have exclusive publication ; was to publish in full, 
without change ; took statement to Boston ; was an agent of the 
Associated Press ; on this account offered statement first to E. L. 
Beard, New England agent Associated Press, Boston ; next offered 
to Boston “ Globe,” and arranged for publication; they were to 
publish it in full, without change, on Saturday, as desired by Phair; 
returned to Vermont and learned that Associated Press had se- 
cured an abstract of statement to appear the afternoon of Phair’s 
execution, April 6 , immediately explained the case to and 86 
urged him to have his statement published on the morning of his 
execution ; Phair denied that he ever gave an abstract to any one ; 
said no one had statement but myself; if such a statement ap- 
peared it was unauthorized and a forgery; with aid of prison offi- 
cials, pursuaded Phair to have statement published Friday morn- 
ing, April 6, 1877 ; Phair did not care to have statement published 
before his execution for reason that his enemies in Rutland and 
Yergennes would claim that it was a lie, and a plea for mercy; 
said it was all true and he could afford to die by it; when I secured 
Phair’s consent I telegraphed Edwin M. Bacon, editor-in-chief of 
Boston “ Globe,” to publish the statement Friday morning. 
This was Thursday night. By desire of Phair I was with him 
the night next prior to day appointed for his execution. A. 
H. Woods and D. L. Spaulding, two prison night guards, were 
also present; as I then believed Phair guilty, I exhorted and 
labored with him to secure a confession. He made no confession. 
I then asked him to give an explicit and minute account of him- 
self, from evening of June 7, 1874, till arrested for murder of 
Anna E. Freeze. Phair said he was at Berwick House night of 
June 7, and Monday morning, June 8, 1874, went to Brandon to 
a circus ; stayed in Brandon all day ; returned to Rutland on mid- 
night train from Brandon ; said he went directly to Berwick House 
and his room ; packed his valise, and, turning down counterpane, 
laid down till time for train for Boston. Said he went to Boston 
and thence to Providence; said he left Boston for Providence 
about five o’clock; when he arrived in Providence got off the 
cars to the left, and passed out into a large open square ; went 
from depot in the direction of the Soldiers’ Monument, and passed 
it on the left; he crossed one street and coming to a second street, 
turned to the left; said he went up this street till he came to a 
large avenue through which were passing horse cars; said he 
met here some workmen who were members of the Working- 
men’s Union, and asked about getting employment in the American 
Screw Company; these men told him that the old men were being 
daily discharged, and a stranger would not be able to secure 
employment; made up his mind to return to Rutland and asked 
workmen where he could find a good, cheap lodging-house and 
restaurant; was told to retrace his steps, would find such near 
the railroad station ; did so, and found a lodging-house with a blue 
sign and white letters ; said thought the inscription ran, “ Boarding 
and Lodging;” here he saw a large black dog with a collar and 
lock; landlord was about forty-five, fat and very social; did not 
register, but was assigned room 18, for which he paid 75 cents ; 
said he thought room was adjacent to room over the office, as he 
could distinctly hear voices in the office below ; that a lamp and 
not gas was used ; that he took his breakfast in a basement restau- 
rant near by and on the same side of the street as the lodging- 
house ; that he offered a torn fifty-cent scrip in pay for his 
breakfast; that the proprietor or clerk did not care to accept of it, 
but after some controversy the scrip was accepted; that he left 
Providence for Boston about eleven o’clock, A.M., Tuesday, June 
10 ; that on the train he held conversation with a man who said he 87 
was born or originally came from Vermont; that he said he was in 
the novelty business in Boston, and had been to Providence on 
business; that he Phair told the stranger that he came from 
Rutland to Providence to secure work of the American Screw 
Company; that he did not succeed and was returning to Rutland, 
Vt., to continue his business as a machinist; that this man offered 
him a commission to sell his novelties in Western Vermont; that 
he told him he would rather return to his old place in Rutland. 
Phair said he sat in the same seat with this man, and when he ar- 
rived in Boston between twelve and one that day he went to the 
Navy Yard ; then took the train to Vermont on which he was 
arrested. Phair never gave me a different statement in relation to 
this matter than what I have stated. I never knew Marshall D. 
Downing till after the first reprieve of Phair; never heard or saw 
him before April 6, 1877 ; never directly or indirectly had any cor- 
respondence or communication with him till after the first reprieve 
of Phair. 
A. H. Wood. Reside at Windsor, Vermont; am guard at 
the Vermont State Prison; was guard over John P. Phair the 
night prior to his execution ; D. L. Spaulding was with me on 
duty ; E. C. Carrigan, of the Boston “ Globe,” was with Phair also. 
He was conversing or writing during the night; heard Phair give 
an account of his trip to Providence ; heard Phair say he was at 
Brandon at the circus Monday, June 8, 1874 ; said he went to 
Providence from Boston on the afternoon train; said he got out of 
the train on the left and stopped at a house not far from the depot; 
said he passed a soldiers’ monument on his left hand ; said he 
stopped in a lodging-house with a blue sign and white letters; 
think he said the words were “Boarding and Lodging;” said he 
saw a large black dog in lodging-house ; said he stopped in room 
18, over the office ; that he paid 75 cents for the room in advance ; 
said he had a controversy about a torn scrip ; also, that he met a 
man going to Boston who was from Vermont formerly, and was 
engaged in the novelty business ; said that the man wanted to 
hire him, Phair, to work on commission, selling goods ; said he 
told the man he had been to Providence to get work of the Amer- 
ican Screw Company, and was going back to Rutland, Vermont; 
Phair previously told me this same story man}' times. 
D. L. Spaulding.— Was guard over Phair with A. H. Wood 
the night before his day for execution. Witness here testified to 
substantially same statement of Phair as Carrigan and Wood, and 
that Phair had previously told him same story. 
E. L. Beard. —Am New England Agent of the Associated 
Press in Boston ; was agent at the time of the publication of 
Phair’s statement in the Boston “ Globe.” Prior to said publication 
one E. C. Carrigan offered the statement to me for publication. 
He desired it published the morning after Phair’s execution. He 
wanted it published in full. 
Edavin M. Bacon was editor of the Boston “ Globe ” at time 
of publication of Phair’s statement; secured the statement from a 
newspaper man in Vermont a few da}'s prior to its publication ; 
agreed to publish the statement on Saturday morning following ex- 88 
ecuiion of Phair, unless authorized to publish earlier; was so 
authorized and published the statement, with an editorial calling 
attention to its extraordinary nature ; reached “ Globe ” office about 
one o’clock day of publication, and was first informed of reprieve 
of Phair ; Col. Taylor, the publisher, informed me ; Col. Taylor and 
myself decided to probe the case to the bottom ; put some of the 
most trustworthy and ablest of our men to work investigation with 
instructions to ascertain facts and discover all evidence possible 
for or against Phair. Am informed that the counsel for govern- 
ment maintain and assert that the whole business of publication 
of Phair’s statement and subsequent work was a newspaper scheme ; 
I declare that such a theory is not warranted from the facts. 
Never knew Phair ; never corresponded with him, or any agents in 
in reference to this matter; never saw Marshall D. Downing; 
never spoke or corresponded with him ; have now no interest what- 
soever in the Boston “ Globe.” 
Chas. H Taylor was business manager of the Boston “ Globe ” 
in April, 1877, and first knew about Phair’s “ dying statement ” on 
April 4 ; was informed by E. M. Bacon, then editor, that such a 
statement had been offered to the “ Globe ” for publication, by one 
E. C. Carrigan; that the conditions for publication were, that it 
should be published in full, and not till Saturday, April 7, unless 
otherwise ordered ; that the said Carrigan telegraphed orders to 
have said statement published Friday morning, April 6 ; that the 
statement was so published ; that about twelve o’clock Friday, 
M. D. Downing, of Boston, came rushing into the “ Globe ” count- 
ing-room, and, in great excitement, stated that he thought he con- 
versed with the man Phair on the Providence train to Boston, June 
10, 1874 ; that he was able to fix the date his memorandum- 
book of June, 1874 ; that he gave a description of Phair which cor- 
responded with the one given by Carrigan to Bacon, editor of the 
“ Globe,” and detailed to me ; that I deemed it my duty to tele- 
graph Governor Fairbanks the facts; I telegraphed both the 
governor and sheriff; that with Downing I went to Chief of Police’s 
office and secured from detective Ham a phototype of John P. 
Phair; that Downing said he was pretty certain that was the man 
he met on the Providence train June 10 ; that there was no collu- 
sion between the “ Globe” and the said M. D. Downing or Phair; 
that I only desired to inform the Governor of Vermont of evidence 
which might be of value in saving the life of John P. Phair. 
Alexander Stone. Reside in Providence; in June, 1874, 
was proprietor of a lodging-house in the city of Providence ; said 
lodging-house was situated on Dorrance street, about one hundred 
yards westerly from Boston & Providence Railroad depot; William 
F. Myers kept a basement restaurant under the brick part of said 
lodging-house ; near the entrance of said lodging-house was a sign of 
dark blue ground with white letters ; entrance of lodging-house was 
about forty feet from Myers’ restaurant; at said time ale was sold 
in m}’’ lodging-house. In June, 1874, I kept two large black dogs ; 
one of these dogs wore a collar; the register of the house was not 
kept in sight, and I did not require lodgers to register; several 
rooms in the house were occupied June 9, 1874, as shown by the 89 
register of that date; room No. 18 was not occupied by any one 
registering ; it might have been occupied and I not now know that 
fact; room No. 18 was adjacent to the room immediately over the 
office, from which voices could be distinctly heard ; price of room 
18, for one person, was 75 cents ; no gas but lamp-light was 
used at that time; was 41 }rears old, rather short, and weighed 
about 150 pounds; entrance to my lodging-house was by one 
flight of steps. 
William F. Myers. Reside in Providence, R. 1.; am a 
restaurant keeper; resided in Providence during the year 1874. 
In June, 1874, kept a basement restaurant on Dorrance street, on 
same side of the street as the lodging-house kept by Alexander 
Stone. Said restaurant was situated about forty feet from said 
lodging-house entrance ; Alexander Stone was proprietor of said 
lodging-house during June, 1874; there was a sign over the en- 
trance of said lodging-house; said sign was about five feet long, 
and of dark-blue ground, with white letters; said proprietor, 
Stone, at said time, kept two large black dogs ; ale and beer were 
sold at said time in said restaurant; one of these dogs wore a 
collar. Thomas Hanley was head-waiter in ray restaurant during 
the month of June, 1874. 
Thomas Hanley. Live in Providence ; during month of June, 
1874, was head-waiter in a basement restaurant kept by William 
F. Myers, in Providence ; there was a lodging-house in same build- 
ing kept by Alexander Stone ; the distance of the restaurant from 
Boston & Providence R.R, Station, should think was one hun- 
dred and fifty yards. There was a blue sign with white letters, 
over the entrance of the lodging-house ; the entrance of the lodg- 
ing-house was two doors from entrance of restaurant; during the 
month of June, I think, 1874, I was offered a torn 50-cent scrip 
by a man who had taken breakfast in the restaurant; asked him 
if it was the best he had; he said no, but it is good ; that they 
take them up our way; looked at the scrip carefully, and finally 
took it. Remember the man was dressed in light clothes. He 
asked something about business in Providence ; said something 
about returning to Boston ; remember I showed the scrip to pro- 
prietor. Am able to fix the time as it was not long before we 
moved, which was in August, 1874. 
Oscar B. Mowry. Attorney ; reside in Boston. On or about 
April 12, 1877, went to Providence to ascertain if there were any 
facts or circumstances corroborating the statement of Phair. Had 
resided in Providence several years, having spent four years at 
Brown University ; was thoroughly acquainted with topography of 
city. Followed directions given by Phair, and, after some inquiry, 
found a person who said he kept a basement restaurant in the im- 
mediate locality corresponding to that referred to by Phair in his 
said statement; that the said person informed me that at Phair’s 
alleged trip to Providence, there was adjacent to the said restaurant 
a lodging-house; that I learned the proprietor’s address and from 
said proprietor received a description of the lodging-house as 
it existed in June, 1874 ; that the said lodging-house and buildings 
adjacent had been torn down, and the new City Hall building was 90 
then in process of erection. At the time of Phair’s Providence 
trip there were but few; I think two basement restaurants in that 
immediate vicinity. 
Edgar B. Ramsdell.—Reside in Cambridge, Middlesex Co., 
Mass. From February, 1875, to January, 1877, was confidential 
clerk of James G. Pierce, 25 Howard street, Boston. Pierce fre- 
quently conversed with me about the trial of Phair for the murder 
of Anna E. Freeze at Rutland. He told me he was the means of 
convicting Phair. Said he made a good thing out of it. Pierce 
has told me several times about this trial; said he paid the ex- 
penses of Morris Livingston to go up and testify against Phair, 
and he got a good sum for what he did. Know Pierce well; he 
was utterly untrustworthy. Would not believe him under oath. 
He has no reputation for truth and Veracity; was at that time 
reputed to be a notorious thief, and a proprietor of a house of ill- 
fame. Here two indictments against James G. Pierce were pre- 
sented. [lndictment. —At the Municipal Court of the city of 
Boston for the county of Suffolk, for the transaction of criminal 
business, on the first Monday in February, 1859, James G. 
Pierce, of Boston, broker, was indicted for stealing on the 2d day 
of December, 1859, at Boston, thirty silver spoons of the value of 
one dollar each, one silver caster-stand of the value of ten dollars, 
two silver knives of the value of one dollar each. He plead 
“ Guilty.” It was considered by the Court that Pierce be pun- 
ished by confinement at hard labor in the House of Correction in 
the county of Suffolk, one year. Following the above indictment 
was read an indictment for receiving and holding stolen goods, to 
which James G. Pierce plead not guilty, but subsequently paid 
costs and the indictment was nolprosed.'] 
John Donovan.— Reside in Boston ;am clerk at the Adams House, 
Boston ; was clerk in June, 1874 ; went to Rutland, Vermont, in June, 
1874, to identify John P. Phair ; the morning of the identification, 
with the other Boston witnesses, I stood on the corner of a street 
and saw a man led through the street handcuffed, and a great 
crowd of people were following him ; told the other witnesses that it 
was not right to stand where we could see the prisoner led by ; the 
witnesses replied, in effect, “ Oh, it doesn’t matter, that is the man ” ; 
the prisoner was handcuffed when he was led b}r the other witnesses ; 
I was not able to identify Phair as the man who signed “E. F. 
Smith, St. Albans, Vt.,” except as the man I saw led through the 
street; I was not able to identify the respondent at the trial as the 
E. F. Smith who registered at the Adams House ; the man E. F. 
Smith had black whiskers and mustache; the whiskers and mus- 
tache were much darker than that of the prisoner; did not testify 
to this fact, as I was not questioned ; told the detectives, Stearns 
and Thornton, about it, but they stated that probably Phair had 
dyed his whiskers and mustache. 
Milfred F. Matol. Live at Platsburg, Clinton County, N. 
Y.; knew John P. Phair in 1874 ; was at Brandon June 8, 1874 ; 
drove a coach from the Brandon depot to the circus grounds with 
Walter F. Scott; saw John P. Phair that day; he was sitting in 
the billiard hall of the Brandon House when I saw him. 91 
Mrs. Robert McLaughlin. —Live inYergennes, Vermont; have 
lived there several years, and done washing; June 15, 1874, I 
received a package delivered by John Grant; the package was an 
express package, and marked “ from Rutland ” ; it had a United 
States and Canada express tag or label; the package contained a 
bundle of clothes ; the clothes were much stained with blood, and 
were women’s clothes ; the clothes were marked “Aurelia Brooks ” ; 
the chemise was completely stained and spattered with blood on 
the breast and down the outside front; the blood was black and 
heavy ; it took three washings to get the blood spots out of the chemise 
and skirt; the petticoat was covered with blood in front; the other 
clothes were more or less stained through the texture of the cloth; 
never saw clothes in such condition before or since ; I called in my 
husband and others to look at them, as it excited my suspicion ; I 
know it was impossible to have been caused by menstruation ; Mrs. 
Brooks, Aurelia’s mother, paid for the washing; the clothes were 
sent to Whitehall, New York ; I believe that some crime had been 
committed; the spatters were dark and heavy; the sprinkles 
appeared to have been occasioned hy spurts of blood. 
Robert McLaughlin.— Live in Yergennes; saw the package 
of bloody clothes; the chemise and other garments were much 
stained ; the tag was a United States and Canada express tag; 
the blood was in dark heavy spots on the chemise. 
Lizzie Coffin. —Live inYergennes ; worked for Mrs. McLaugh- 
lin in June, 1874 ; saw the bundle of bloody clothes ; John Grant, 
the expressman, brought them ; the clothes was marked “Aurelia 
Brooks ” ; the blood on the chemise and skirts was in heavy spots, 
and spattered over the front of each garment; every 
article was more or less stained ; looked as if the blood was spurted 
over the breast of chemise and skirt; never saw clothes in such a 
condition before; the clothes were sent to New York to Aurelia 
Brooks ; old Mrs. Brooks paid for the washing. 
Edward S. Hayes. Live in Yergennes ; knew Aurelia Brooks ; 
saw the package of bloody clothes ; John Grant delivered the bun- 
dle ; the tag was marked “from Rutland”; the clothes were 
stained and spotted with dark heavy blood ; saw them when Mrs. 
McLaughlin opened the bundle. 
EVIDENCE OF STATE IN REBUTTAL. 
S. W. Rowell. —Am cashier of Rutland National Bank; have 
had experience in examination of hand-writing. (Photographs of 
hand-writing of E. F. Smith, as written on Adams House reg- 
ister, with E. F. Smith, as written by Phair in Rutland jail, were 
here handed witness) ; I have bisected each photograph longitudi- 
nally, and pasted the upper half of the one over the lower half of 
the other, so as to match the different bi-sections; I find that they 
match letter by letter, element by element, curve by curve, and 
space by space, as though written with one stroke of the pen. The 
matching is remarkable. A man not writing a fixed hand would 
rarely be able to write the same words to match so precisely even 
when he made special effort to do so; it would be almost impossi- 92 
ble for a man to make a signature on a hotel register and the same 
signature under different circumstances and match them so pre- 
cisety; my opinion is that the originals of these photographs 
were written by the same hand. 
Q. Would you, considering the suspicious and remarkable re- 
semblance, as well as the general character of the writing, be will- 
ing to cash a check of SIO,OOO, on the genuineness of the writing, 
unless you had other evidence that they were written by the same 
hand ? 
A. I would not. 
Geo. Phippen, Jr. Am receiving teller of the Suffolk National 
Bank, Boston; have seen the signature E. F. Smith on the Adams 
House register, and E. E. Smith and John P. Phair on a separate 
piece of paper; I have no doubt that they were written by the 
same hand. 
William F. Myers.—Have given an affidavit in the case of 
John P. Phair previously; there were several blue signs on the 
front of the building containing my restaurant and Stone’s Hotel, 
but never had on them “ boarding and lodging ; ” the Soldiers’ Mon- 
ument, which is about fifty feet high, stood immediately in front of 
the building, and about sixty feet from it; in June, 1874, had one 
hundred and twenty boarders, about half of wThom were transient. 
Alexander Stone testified as to signs and monument, same as 
preceding witness, that the dog mentioned in the former affidavit 
would weigh about fifty pounds. 
Albert C. Johnson. —ln 1874 was on police force of the city 
of Providence, and am now deputy sheriff in same city; in 1874 a 
woman claiming to be a sister of one John P. Phair, gave me a 
photograph of Phair, and a letter in which he gave directions, 
descriptions of signs, the incident about the torn scrip, etc., etc. 
[substantially as given in his statements to E. C. Carrigan, A. H. 
Hood, and other witnesses] ; I searched diligently in July, 1874, 
and showed the likeness at places that in any way answered his 
description, but could find no trace of him; I received no pay for 
my services. 
. James O. Swan. —Had my attention called to Phair’s case by 
Stearns and Thornton, in June, 1874 ; these men gave me Phair’s 
account of his trip to Providence, which was substantially as testi- 
fied to by Johnson; we found Stone’s Hotel and Myers’ restau- 
rant, but no one remembered anything of Phair; the building had 
blue signs in front, but the words “ Boarding and Lodging” were 
not to be found ; went to Rutland for the State, and was there dur- 
ing the trial: was not called upon to testify. 
Hart B. Pierce accompanied Johnson on his researches in 
Providence in 1874, but could find no trace of Phair. 
N. S. Stearns. —Am the Stearns who testified at Phair’s trial; 
procured the attendance of Pierce and other witnesses from Bos- 
ton ; paid him his expenses and sls besides ; he received nothing 
else. [Witness here testified, virtually, the same as Swan, in re- 
gard to the Providence trip.] Phair told me that he stopped at 
Providence when he came home from the war; Thornton and my- 
self got $2,000 of the reward. 93 
Oliver J. Cain. —Was bar-tender at the Berwick House when 
Joseph White and John P. Phair boarded there ; it was not possi- 
ble to see the windows of the room occupied by Phair from the 
room occupied by White ; it w'as half a mile from the depot to Mrs. 
Freeze’s house ; the midnight train arrived in Brandon about 12.40 ; 
I have kept saloon ever since 1874. 
Mr. McCall then made the opening argument for the petitioner 
as follows : 
The proper subjects of discussion at this hearing are the affi- 
davits annexed to this petition, the affidavits attached to the 
previous petition for a new trial, and so much of the evidence 
adduced at the trial as may be necessary to give the clear rela- 
tions of the new evidence to the case as it appeared before the 
jury. While b}r statute the basis of the present petition is limited 
to evidence not previously before the Court, the evidence upon 
which the former petition was based is as much a part of the record 
as the evidence taken at the trial. When the petitioner is once 
given, upon his evidence, a standing in this Court, it is then mani- 
festly proper for him to review the whole record, and if upon all 
the evidence, the evidence at the trial and the evidence since dis- 
covered, he can satisfy the Court that a jury would now be likely 
to render a different verdict, he is entitled to a new trial. 
The affidavits of White and Matot tend to prove that Phair was 
at Brandon on the Bth of June, 1874. This evidence is by no 
means irrelevant simply because it does not prove an alibi to the 
murder. His statement that he -was at Brandon was before the 
jury. He not only failed to prove that he was there, but all the 
evidence in the case tended to prove that he was not. The State’s 
Attorney made no unwarrantable statement when he said in effect 
to the jury, “You will find that he lied about going to Brandon. 
Since he has lied concerning his whereabouts on that day, you will 
find that he was at Mrs. Freeze’s house from Sunday evening until 
after the murder.” That Phair should lie concerning his where- 
abouts on that day would be a very serious circumstance against 
him. He now shows that he was at Brandon, and accounts for 
himself until 1.30 o’clock on the morning of the murder. He was 
accounted for at the trial after 3.45 o’clock on the same morning. 
There remains for him, therefore, but a little more than two hours 
to twice traverse the distance between the Berwick House and Mrs. 
Freeze’s house, commit the murder, which, with the attendant 
burning of the house, was most deliberate, execute the robbery, and 
do all this in the manner alleged, without a single blood-spot upon 
his clothes and with nothing in his appearance, when first after- 
wards seen, to justify a suspicion of the crime. The chances that 
he committed the murder under these circumstances are almost 
infinitely less than under the state of facts before the jury, viz., 
that he was at Mrs. Freeze’s house for the thirty-six hours preced- 
ing the murder. It does not at all meet the case to say that he 
might have been at Brandon and still have committed the murder. 
This evidence strikes at the very heart of the issue. The jury 
were justified in supplementing the possession of the murdered 
woman’s goods in Boston, which fact alone, unaccounted for. 94 
would not be sufficient to support a conviction of murder in any 
just court, by his false account of himself for a considerable time 
before the commission of the crime, and render such a verdict as 
was rendered. But now, when it is shown that he truly accounted 
for himself, and that barely two hours remain at a time of night 
when but few could produce witnesses for their whereabouts, it 
would be to go in quest of and to follow the most harsh and austere 
maxims of the law to seek an explanation of this new evidence on 
the theory of guilt. 
The affidavits of Leavitt and Bond tend to prove that Mrs. 
Freeze was seen about the middle of the night on which she was 
murdered, in a hack with a man other than Phair, which hack was 
being driven in the direction of her house. When the character of 
this woman’s house is considered a brothel, infested by the most 
abandoned class in that whole section of the State—and that when 
last seen alive by any witness, and but a few hours before her 
death, she was in a hack at midnight, with a strange man, it would 
be most cruel to deny the right of this man to have the benefit of 
this fact before a jury. 
The deposition of Downing affords an identification of circum- 
stances, and through them of the man. And here the question may 
arise, Wly has not Downing made some attempt to personally 
identif}- Phair? This question is susceptible of an easy answer. 
If he should identify Phair, whom he had but once seen, and 
casually, years ago, among many other strangers, and when Phair 
was at liberty, in the flush of health, and with whiskers upon his 
face, while now he is pallid from long imprisonment and excite- 
ment, his face smooth shaven, his hair closely cropped, and his 
garb that of a prisoner, such an identification would brand his 
testimony with the gravest suspicion. What an opportunity 
would it give to the representatives of the State to raise up their 
favorite cries in this case of “ fraud,” and “ newspaper sensation,” 
which they have shrieked from the outset, upon general principles, 
and without any evidence. We did not need to subject Mr. Down- 
ing to any unnatural tests. We will show your Honors, by far 
better evidence than any improbable testimony of personal identi- 
fication, that Downing met Phair on that noon train from Provi- 
dence. We shall convince you that this is true hy circumstances, 
isolated, minute, scattered through three j-ears, and over several 
Commonwealths, and all tending to a common point circum- 
stances so preserved and recalled, in accordance with the laws of 
memory and the preservation of human events, as to preclude any 
suspicion of forgery or mistake; and by witnesses disconnected 
and unknown to each other, so that if you discredit them, 3-011 will 
be compelled to believe that they committed concurrent perjury 
upon the same point when they had no opportunity for complicity, 
and not a shadow of a motive for telling anything but the truth. 
During Downing’s return trip from Providence, by the train that 
reached Boston about noon on June 10, 1874, he met and con- 
versed with a man who said he was a mechanic ; that he came from 
Rutland, Vermont, and had been to Providence to get work from 
the American Screw two men should have gone from Rutland to Providence on the 
same errand, and have returned hy the same train. The supple- 
ment to the testimony of Downing are the affidavits of Perry, 
Carrigan, and the prison guards. Downing’s attention was at- 
tracted to this case by reading Phair’s statement, published in the 
Boston Daily Globe of the 6th of April, 1877, and especially those 
parts of it mentioned in his (Downing’s) deposition. It does not 
appear that he read anything in that statement about Phair’s hav- 
ing met a man on the train from Providence to Boston, and, in 
fact, no such information was conveyed. But the affidavits of 
Perry and Carrigan prove that Phair had stated that he met a man, 
a stranger to him, on that same train, who Said that he was in the 
novelty business in Boston; that he original!}7 came from Ver- 
mont ; that he asked Phair to work on commission for him, and 
that they sat together on the same seat during a considerable part 
of the journey. Downing answered this account precisely. It is 
monstrously improbable that Downing should have met a man on 
that train so closely meeting Phair’s description of himself at that 
time, and that man be another than Phair. It is equally improb- 
able that Phair should have met a man on that same train answering 
so closely his description of Downing to Perry and Carrigan, and 
that man not be Downing. But these two improbabilities coupled 
together make it a moral certainty that Phair and Downing met on 
that train. It is to be noted here that neither Perry, Downing, 
nor Carrigan had ever met or communicated with each other before 
the first reprieve ; nor had Downing ever communicated with Phair, 
unless on the train from Providence. Now, if Phair was on that 
train, we have proven here a clear and direct alibi to the pawning 
of the goods to Pierce, to the signing of the pawn-ticket, and to 
the selling of the rings to Ehrlich. If Phair did not do these 
things, there is no probability that he signed the name “E. F. 
Smith ” on the Adams House register, or disposed of the other 
goods to the other pawnbrokers. There is another direct piece of 
evidence that Phair did not write the name on the register, and 
that is the testimony of John Donovan, Jr., the clerk of the Adams 
House. 
This gentleman, whose occupation would naturally require and 
cultivate a great power of remembering faces, swears that the man 
who registered that name differed materially in appearance from 
Phair; in this connection it may be stated that, while all the Jews 
who are so clamorous in their oaths against Phair, identified him 
positively at the trial, Mr. Donovan, whose testimony in that regard 
would naturally exceed in value that of all the Jews combined, 
could not identify him ; that the Jews should concurrently swear in 
such a forward manner on the point of identity is a very suspicious 
circumstance. But if it could have been known to the jury, as it 
is now known to your Honors, that the chief witness, Pierce, was 
a professional thief; that Isaac Smith, who in remembering Phair 
displayed a remarkable power of recollection, and in forgetting 
Judge Evarts displayed as marvellous a power of forgetting, was a 
felon, with the fresh laurels of penal service upon him ; that this 
same Smith came to Rutland and testified against Phair under an 96 
assumed name ; that the reward-seeking detectives attempted and 
probably effected bribery (which may account for the wonderful 
quickening of Ehrlich’s memory) ; what a vast weight must these 
facts alone, omitting now the other new evidence, have had upon 
the deliberations of the jury? But when we consider with these 
facts the other new evidence already recited, how decisively would 
it have weighed with the jury. 
Further corroboration of Downing, if any is needed, is found in 
the testimony concerning the places where Phair lodged and took his 
meals while in Providence. Many of these facts are very important, 
and, taken together, they are quite conclusive. Why, for instance, 
should Phair say a lamp was used in the room in which he slept. 
Any one merely guessing would have said the light was gas in such 
a large city. Yet in the room which Phair described gas was not 
used at that time. Then, again, his statement concerning the 
number, price, and location of the room, the black dog, and the 
office, can leave no doubt, if there was no collusion, that his story 
about going to Providence is true. Phair described this lodging- 
house and restaurant, Avhen arrested, to the detectives. If all his 
subsequent statements are dismissed and only those made to 
Stearns and Thompson considered, there is ample information to 
■warrant all the discoveries in Providence. Phair stated to these 
officers the direction of the basement restaurant from the depot, the 
relative location to that restaurant of the lodging-house, and the 
color and purport of the signs on the front of the building. The 
fact remains, that at that time the basement restaurant and lodg- 
ing-house were located with reference to the depot and to each 
other, just as Phair had described, and no other basement restaurant 
and lodging-house in that whole section of the city were 
relative!}7 so located; and, further, the color and purport of the 
signs at these places were what Phair had described them to be. 
The variance in the wording of the signs, which the State has been 
at such great pains to establish, is even in favor of the truth and 
genuineness of the narrative. Phair arrived in Providence in* the 
early evening. He was in search of a place where he might eat 
and sleep after his long journey. Those signs informed him that 
he might get in that building both board and lodging, and he was 
interested only in the purport of the signs. The color of the 
signs —‘the blue ground and white letters would naturally become 
impressed upon his mind, but the exact wording he would as 
naturally forget. The sequel, therefore, shows that what one would 
be most likely to remember, Phair remembered accurately, and 
what one would be most likely to forget, he remembered in sub- 
stance. This little error, therefore, is a strong witness to the 
truth of the whole story. The detectives for the State really 
suppressed the evidence in regard to the trip to Providence. They 
testified that, although they made diligent search in Providence, 
under the guidance of one thoroughl}7 conversant with the city, 
they discovered no such places as Phair had described to them. 
This testimou}7, taken in connection with the absence of proof on 
the part of Phair, tended to prove the whole story about the trip to 
Providence a lie. It now appears from the testimony of Detective 97 
Swan, who acted for the State, and who appears here as a witness 
for the State, that all these facts were within the knowledge of the 
detectives at the time of the trial. The corroboration of Phair’s 
account of himself in Providence seems complete. But a way is 
devised to avoid its force. The witness who stands in the 
breach has a record. If the testimony of the State now introduced 
in rebuttal is to be believed he rankly perjured himself at the trial; 
he suppressed the Providence evidence in Phair’s behalf; he laborod 
anxiously upon Donovan to have him identify Phair; he gathered 
from the charnal house of Pierce, in Boston, the most abandoned 
and dissolute set of witnesses that ever disgraced a court of justice ; 
according to his own admission, he put in his pocket 81,000 blood- 
money of the large reward offered for a conviction; he came to 
the rescue of every critical point of the State’s case at the trial, by 
testimony as to some admission he had wrung out of Phair. The 
name of this witness is N. S. Stearns; the exigency of the State 
in regard to the Providence testimon}’ is manifest, and he is not 
wanting. He now testifies that Phair admitted to him at the time 
of his arrest that he was at Providence just after the war. This 
would account for the knowledge of the city which Phair exhibited 
in his statements. Ido not believe it is necessary for me to argue 
this testimony in this court; I do not believe for a moment that 
your Honors will entertain such a suggestion coming from such a 
source. 
In regard to the hand-writing, the resemblance is too great 
between that written by Phair and that on the Adams House reg- 
ister, on account of this perfect matching of lines, spaces, and 
curves; a witness of the State, cashier Rowell, testifies that he 
would not take the cashing of a SIO,OOO check on the identity of the 
hand-writing. Such evidence ought not to hang a man. When 
you consider the channel through which this evidence comes, a 
channel that has conducted into your courts the drainage of the 
sewers of Boston, and has polluted even them, you will be justified 
in believing this hand-writing a too cunning forgery. From the 
position of the name upon the register, ample opportune of forgery 
was permitted, and the very few that were registered before this 
name, compared with the number who usually register before the 
time of day this name purports to have been written, and other 
suspicious facts, invite this explanation. 
One other suspicious thing may be noticed in regard to the pawn- 
ing of the goods. When Phair arrived in Boston, he rode imme- 
diately to the Providence depot; now then he begins his pawning, 
if the testimony of the State is true, soon after his arrival and in 
a part of the city far distant from the Providence depot; he then 
goes to another extreme of the city and sells the rings, and then 
returns to the vicinity where he began and completes his work. I 
submit that this is a very unnatural course, and it is still more un- 
natural that he should visit nearly all the Hebrew pawnshops in 
Boston to dispose of a few goods. He could easily have disposed 
of them all to Abrams without this canvassing for so maqy wit- 
nesses against him. And that the detectives should have brought 
into court so many pawnbrokers and so many friends of pawnbrok- 98 
ers, who were conveniently present in their shops at the pawning, 
that they might reproduce from their truly marvellous memories a 
minute account of matters which for them could possess no interest, 
affords a strong ground for the belief that they hoped, in the hue 
and cry against this destitute man, their witnesses would be counted 
and not weighed, and, therefore, they sought to build up a bad 
cause with the concurrent perjury of many persons. This -would ac- 
count for the dense and black cloud of witnesses which they pro- 
duced at the trial. 
In regard, general!}7, to the witnesses in Phair’s behalf, only a 
word is necessary. There is not the slightest reason to consider 
their testimony with suspicion. This man has not the means 
to effect bribery. He has depended entirely upon the aid of 
charity. No witness has had an}’ possible interest to swear falsely. 
Many of them have given their time, and some have liberally con- 
tributed their means to aid in his defence. At the trial not only 
was Phair without evidence in his favor, but the tendency of all the 
evidence was to prove that he lied. And yet under these circum- 
stances the jury deliberated several hours, and came in a second 
time for instructions before rendering a verdict. The evidence 
newly discovered tends to show that Phair gave a true account of 
himself, and to derange all the theories of the prosecution. Can 
there, therefore, be any doubt that, if this evidence had been pre- 
sented at the trial, the jury would have been likely to render a 
different verdict? 
State’s Attorney Lawrence then followed Mr. McCall for the 
prosecution: 
From the evidence in the former trial it appears that Anna E. 
Freeze was murdered and her house burned, June 9, 1874. That 
about 5 P.M. the same date the name “ E. F. Smith, St. Albans, 
Vt.,” w’as registered at the Adams House, Boston. In the room 
occupied by E. F. Smith a shawl of the murdered woman was 
found, also that goods subsequently recognized to be property 
of Mrs. Freeze were pledged by one claiming to be E. F. Smith, 
from St Albans, and stopping at the Adams House. On June 10, 
1874, goods of the murdered woman were pawned by E. F. Smith 
to James Gr. Pierce, 25 Howard street, also to one Ehrlich, another 
Boston pawnbroker. The respondent was identified as the E. F. 
Smith who pledged the murdered woman’s goods. Soon after 
arrest, Phair wrote the name E. F. Smith, St. Albans, Vermont, 
which by best of experts is shown to be the same hand-writing as 
E. F. Smith on Adams House register. Phair was unable to ac- 
count for himself from Sunday eve, June 7, till Tuesday 3.30 A.M. 
His room does not appear to have been occupied. When arrested, 
he could not give a satisfactory account of himself. He was un- 
able to give the name of a single person he met in going to Provi- 
dence and return, except Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, of Rutland. He 
contradicts himself when questioned as to his first knowledge of 
the murder and arson, as seen by the testimony of Van Neider. 
In Phair’s valise were found new shirts, which he claimed wrere 
purchased at Mr. Haven’s, in Vergennes. This on trial was proven 
false. As to Donovan’s testimony regarding the color of respond- 99 
ent’s whiskers, nothing can be made but to support the belief that 
Phair was the E. F. Smith as deduced from Stewart’s testimony in 
respondent’s behalf. Again, the evidence of hand-writing is 
enough alone to make any sane person confirmed in the guilt of 
respondent. It cannot be explained away. It completes the chain 
of which not a link is unsound. There cannot be a doubt, much 
less a reasonable doubt. Matot’s affidavit slightly tends to show 
Phair in Brandon, June 8, 1874, yet he does not swear that he 
knew Phair positively, nor does he give any reason for remembering 
the event. This disposes of the so-called new evidence as regards 
Phair’s presence in Brandon, June 8. If Phair had been in Bran- 
don he had ample time to commit the crime, jTet the evidence that 
he was there is far from conclusive. Phair endeavors to account 
for himself in Providence. Has there been a person to swear that 
the respondent was seen in Providence? Has Hanley swore that 
he recognized the convict by a photograph, much more identified him 
at Windsor? Why has not Hanley been taken to Windsor to test 
his memory and identify Phair? At Providence the location of 
the lodging-house was found, but where is the sign “ Boarding and 
Lodging ” ? The principal sign on Stone’s lodging-house was 
“ Hotel.” It is true there was a blue sign with white letters, yet 
the prominent sign was “ Hotel.” Again, why did not Phair recall 
the fact that a monument was near the location described by him. 
This was of all the objects in view the most noticeable. It can not 
be conceded that a man on trial for his life would omit such a 
prominent witness. The monument was there a silent, substantial 
witness to the truth, if such a truth it was. It cannot be probable 
that such is the case. The first we hear about the monument is in 
evidence adduced at this trial. In addition to the monument the 
fertile imagination of Carrigan, Wood, and Spaulding give birth 
to the .full grown black dog about which so much has been said and 
written. Again, the particular business of this man was not known 
till after respondent’s conviction and incarceration at Windsor, of 
all the verbiage of Downing, but one clause, if any, is admissible, 
unless that which relates to his endeavor to describe the man he 
met on the Providence train, and even that description is general 
and would apply to a thousand others. 
Downing stated that he saw a picture of Phair, and which he 
pretends to identify as the man he met on the train. It does not 
appear in evidence that the photograph he saw was of Phair. If 
it was Phair’s photograph, win’ is the fact not shown ? The defence 
cannot presume to ask us to accept this statement when it is not 
shown to be of Phair. Then why has not Downing been to Wind- 
sor to identif}" the man Phair, and upon seeing him to say whether 
or not he was the man he met on the train? Is there any excuse 
for this ? Is there any reason for this part being left undone ? This 
is the vital link of the defence ; in its weakness the whole chain is 
destroyed. There is nothing been left undone by the vigilant scru- 
tiny and able management of the defence that would benefit Phair. 
The Legislature, since the reprieve had been besieged, the State 
Prison, as it were, undermined to save this man. The Courts’ atten- 
tion, again and again, by some new turn and technicality, has been 100 
drawn to this most celebrated case. Yet withal, this man Down- 
ing is not called to identify the respondent. Allowing the testi- 
raon}' of the several witnesses for the defence to be substantial and 
admissible, what can it weigh against the overwhelming evidence 
of the hand-writing, and the identification by the Boston witnesses 
for the State. It also appears from the time-tables of the Boston 
& Providence road that Phair might have gone to Providence and 
pawned the goods. ’Tis true there is to be made an allowance for 
time, yet it can be explained consistent with Phair’s guilt and 
Downing’s statement, both may be true. The Court will not grant 
a new trial unless the evidence adduced here is sufficient to change 
the result. To those who would look with the keenest regard to 
right, there does not appear from all the evidence here presented a 
valid reason why the prayer should be granted, and the case re- 
turned to the lower court. 
Ex-Gov. John C. Stewart followed Mr. Lawrence, and made 
the closing argument for the State. Mr. Stewart made a very 
eloquent argument, and it is to be regretted that he spoke from a 
very meagre brief, and that no report of it is extant. He said he 
represented the people who were interested in law and order, and 
whose safety demanded that felons of high degree should be pun- 
ished. This man had been convicted and sentenced to die. The 
Courts had carefully examined his case and refused relief. He 
was reprieved. It was announced that there were strong evidence 
in his favor. The press took up his cause. Like “Fama” in 
Virgil, it had grown with the telling; it had crescit-enudoed. He 
now comes into Court with a great mass of testimony. What is 
there in it all? Nothing if the affidavits of Matot and Downing 
are excepted, and both of these testify to facts so remote in time, 
and unimportant, that their evidence should be regarded with sus- 
picion. It was merely an effort to help Phair break jail. Counsel 
had said that the hand-writing was forged? Where is the evidence, 
and how was it forged? The name on the Adams House register 
was first written, afid Phair was seen to write the other name. 
The Court would not be influenced by these sentimental proceed- 
ings. All the tears from all the eyes of professional philanthro- 
pists for the last five hundred years could have no weight in view 
of the overwhelming evidence against Phair. It stood out like a 
mountain against him ; like that monument in Providence which 
he did not see, although it was in front of the very house in which 
he pretended to have stopped. There was a temptation for him 
to say a great deal in this case, but he would not yield to it. It 
was getting now so that a writ of error lay from our Supreme 
Courts to the newspapers. This revising of decisions by such 
agencies should be firmly and unhesitatingly repressed. Hon. 
Charles B. Eddy then closed the case for the petitioner, as fol- 
lows : 
ME. EDDY’S ARGUMENT. 
In considering the question, whether a new trial should be 
granted, —it is necessary to consider the case as developed before 
the jury that rendered the verdict of “ Guilty,” as well as the evi- 101 
dence discovered since the conviction. The conviction was upon 
evidence wholly circumstantial. However strong it may be 
claimed the case was, as made against Phair on the trial, there 
were lacking some things the existence of which would have been 
necessary had he been guilty of the crime. 
The evidence on the part of the State was to the effect that 
Mrs. Freeze died from loss of blood flowing from the wound in 
her neck, which severed the arteries, veins, and wind-pipe, and 
that it was hardly possible that the person who inflicted this 
wound could have escaped without bearing upon his clothing 
some of the blood of his victim. Such was the evidence of the 
eminent physicians and surgeons who made examination of the 
body and the wound, and who were introduced as witnesses by 
the State. All the clothing and effects which Phair possessed 
previous to and at the time of the murder were taken possession 
of by the State in less than forty-eight hours after the crime was 
committed, and submitted to the most searching scrutiny and 
most careful tests by the same physicians and surgeons, and they 
testified that they were unable to find the slightest trace of blood 
upon any of them. There was no pretence that Phair possessed 
any article of clothing at the time of the murder that was not thus 
examined for blood-stains. 
The evidence on the part of the State established be}7ond ques- 
tion that Mrs. Freeze had in her possession on the night of the 
murder S3OO or S4OO in cash. Mrs. Freeze usually had on hand 
quite a sum of money, and had a passion for exhibiting it. Her 
frequent exhibition of it made it generall}' known that she had it. 
It was argued by the State that the motive for the commission of 
the crime w'as to obtain possession of this money. Phair left Rut- 
band on the 4 A.M. train on the 9th of June, 1874, and was 
arrested on the evening of the 10th, on the train, on his return to 
Rutland. He then had upon his person only $5.65. He arrived 
at the Providence depot in Boston, about two of the clock, P.M., 
of the 9th, and was accompanied from Rutland to this depot by 
Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, of Rutland. He had no opportunity to 
spend anjr considerable amount of money up to two o’clock in the 
afternoon of the 9th. At five o’clock, P.M., of the 10th, he took 
the train at the Boston & Fitchburg depot, on his return. From 
this time up to his arrest, he had no opportunity to spend money, 
except for his passage ticket, and refreshment at the railroad 
stations. The person who pledged and sold Mrs. Freeze’s goods 
in Boston received SSO for them. Phair’s arrest was made on the 
train, and before he was aware he was suspected, or that any officer 
was near him. His return to the scene of the murder so soon, un- 
mistakably indicates that he did not know he was suspected as the 
criminal. He, therefore, had no motive to dispose of or secrete 
any money, and there was no pretence on the trial of any evidence 
that he had done so. The small amount of money found on Phair’s 
person, and the absence of blood-stains upon his clothing, are not 
consistent with the theor}7 of his guilt, and are weighty circum- 
stances in favor of his innocence of the crime charged. 
There was also a further weakness in the case made by the State. 102 
Stearns and Thornton, the Rutland detectives, operated under the 
stimulating effect of an offer of $2,500 reward for the detection and 
conviction of the criminal. They took several pawnbrokers and 
their “chums” from Boston to Rutland, after Phair’s arrest, to 
have them identify Phair as the person who pawned the goods. 
These reward-detectives exhibited to these witnesses, before they 
went to Rutland, a photograph of Phair, and gave to them a full 
description of him and of his clothing, thus enabling them to pick out 
Phair when the}r did go to Rutland. Evidence of identity coming 
from such witnesses, thus coached and prepared by men who had 
$2,500 at stake, is suspicious and unsatisfactory. 
The case, as developed before the jury, considered in connection 
with the evidence discovered since the conviction, shows still fuiv 
ther weakness, and shows great wrong practised upon the now con- 
demned man. It seems that the spirit of greed took possession of 
the reward-hunters, and made them reckless so far as even decency 
was concerned in their efforts to win the stakes. 
The testimony of John Donovan, Jr., now shows that when the 
State’s Boston witnesses went to Rutland, in 1874, to identify 
Phair, that it was arranged that the identification should take place 
at a public hall, and that while the officers were taking Phair to the 
hall, handcuffed, these witnesses were stationed on the street, and 
Phair was led by them, and their identification of him at the hall 
was after he had been, in the manner described, unmistakably indi- 
cated as the man under arrest and charged with the crime. This, 
in addition to the photographic and descriptive preparation fur- 
nished by Stearns and Thornton, most seriously impairs their testi- 
mony. 
Donovan’s testimony also shows that, when he saw Phair at 
Rutland, he told Stearns and Thornton that he should not want to 
swear that Phair was the man who registered at the Adams House ; 
that his mustache and whiskers were not as black as those of the 
man who registered as E. F, Smith ; and that these reward-pursuers 
replied to Donovan, “ Perhaps Phair had his mustache and 
whiskers dyed when the name E. F. Smith was registered.” They 
well knew this suggestion was false. Phair , had fallen into their 
hands early on the morning of the 11th of June. If his mus- 
tache and whiskers had been blackened by d}*e, they, and all who 
knew him in Rutland, would have detected it. The case showed 
nothing of the kind, and the suggestion was false the wicked 
product of greed. It is now made to appear on this hearing that 
Phair wrote a letter to his half-sister, in Providence, soon after his 
arrest, giving the location and description of the lodging-house 
and restaurant where he claimed to have lodged and to have taken 
his meals on the night of the 9th of Jane, and morning of the 
10th, giving the number of the room occupied by him, and many 
other details of description, and requested her to have the matter 
looked up. She placed this descriptive letter in the hands of a 
Providence officer to investigate, and he knew from the description 
where the place was, and found it answered Phair’s description re- 
markabty well; but, unfortunately, this officer, while making these 
investigations, fell into the hands of Stearns and Thornton, and 103 
they made the investigations with him, and it was left for them to 
report whether there was such a lodging-house and restaurant in 
the location given by Phair; and they returned to Rutland, re- 
ported that they had visited Providence, made thorough search, 
and could find no such lodging-house and restaurant; that nothing 
of the kind existed answering Phair’s description ; and the}*- so 
testified on the trial. This Providence officer now gives his testi- 
mony, and it shows that the testimony of Stearns and Thornton 
was false. 
Counsel for the prosecution recognized in their argument to the 
jury the importance of the truth or falsity of Phair’s claim that he 
was in Brandon on the night of the Bth of June, and stayed in 
Providence on the night of the 9th. The charge of the Court also 
recognized it. It was, on the trial, virtually conceded that, if 
Phair stayed in Providence on the night of the 9th of June, and 
returned to Boston about noon on the 10th, that he could not have 
been the person who registered at the Adams House as E. F. 
Smith, and who pawned the opera glass and shawl to Pierce at 10 
o’clock, A.M., on the 10th. If Phair was in Brandon on the 
night of the Bth, and returned on the train to Rutland after mid- 
night, it is much less probable that he was at the house of Mrs. 
Freeze at all that night or morning. And, in view of the conceded 
character of the place she kept, it is more probable that some other 
person or persons were there. The affidavits of Charles A. 
Leavitt and Charles A. Bond strongly tend to show that a person 
other than Phair was there. They saw Mrs. Freeze in a carriage, 
about midnight, with a man who was not Phair, going towards her 
residence. The affidavits of White and Matot show that Phair 
was in Brandon on the night of the Bth, and returned to Rutland 
after midnight. 
The testimony of Marshall A. Downing is of great importance. 
He was most critical!}’ examined, and cross-examined and a careful 
examination of his testimony can leave no other impression than 
that he is an honest witness. He gives good reasons for his recol- 
lections. His conduct subsequent to reading the statement of 
Phair, on the morning fixed for his execution, gives an honest char- 
acter to the story he tells. Being convinced from Phair’s statement, 
and from the entries in his books, that on the forenoon of June 
10th, 1874, he journeyed from Providence to Boston with him, oc- 
cupied the same seat and conversed with him, he went to Chief of 
Police Savage, in great mental anxiety, and made known to him 
his convictions, and was advised to send a telegram to the governor. 
He did not know the place of the residence of the governor, and 
sent telegrams to various parts of the State, and came quite near 
being too late to stop Phair’s execution. The affidavits of E. L. 
Beard, the Boston agent of the Associated Press, Edwin M. Bacon, 
then editor-in-chief of the “ Globe,” Col. Taylor, the manager of the 
“ Globe,” and E. C. Carrigan, in connection with Downing’s testi- 
mony, repel the idea of any scheme to defeat justice. Downing had 
never before heard of Phair by name, did not know of his prosecu- 
tion and conviction until he read his statement. Immediately 
after his arrest Phair told M. C. Perry of meeting, occupying a 104 
seat, and conversing with a stranger on the train from Providence 
to Boston, on his return trip, on the 10th of June, and gave an 
account of the subjects they conversed about substantially the 
same as Downing recalled on reading his statement. 
Phair also gave to Col. Veazey, his counsel, the same account 
soon after his arrest. He also gave the same account to the prison 
guards, on the early morning of the day he was to have been ex- 
ecuted. The showing excludes the idea of collusion between 
Phair and any other person to bring about a reprieve. This 
statement of the condemned man, told on the earl}7 morning of 
his arrest, —repeated to his counsel arid to Perry, and again on 
the day on which he was to die, did not, by either accident or 
fraud, so well comport with what the newly discovered evidence 
has brought to light. On his trial he was unable to find any 
evidence to support his account of himself on the nights of the Bth 
and 9th of June. He was without means and friends, and put 
upon trial in one week after he was arraigned, and counsel assigned 
to him. The jury did not have the opportunity to weigh this newly 
discovered evidence, and did not have the opportunity to weigh the 
evidence produced on the trial in the light of this. 
Much stress has been placed by the State upon the hand-writing 
evidence. This, as an element in the case, undoubtedly operated 
strongly against the respondent. But this kind of evidence is not 
always unerring. Like all other evidence from human sources, it 
is capable of misleading. There are ear-marks about the writing, 
in connection with the circumstances under which it was obtained, 
and in view of the newly discovered evidence, that suggest more 
than a mere doubt in relation to it. The hand-writing of a person 
can be so imitated as to almost, if not quite, defy detection. Too 
much facsimile is an element of weakness. So close a matching of 
lines and spaces is suggestive of forgery. The State has made too 
much of this. The experts produced by the State all say that Phair 
had not acquired a fixedness of hand-writing. The reward-hunters 
went to the jail in Rutland, and asked Phair to write his name on 
a sheet of paper, which he readily did. They then asked him to 
write “E. F. Smith, St. Albans, Vt.,” which he as readily did. 
They then went to Boston. On the trial, this sheet, with the 
writing, was produced, and also the Adams House register, with 
the name “E. F. Smith, St. Albans, Vt.,” on it. One is a perfect fac- 
simile of the other. Photographs of each have been taken, and 
these having been cut from right to left through the centre, it is 
found that the upper half of one will exactly fit and match the lower 
half of the other. Each line and space is an exact fit. There is 
altogether too much fac-siviile. If this man, not accustomed to 
write much, a mechanic, wrote “ E. F. Smith, St. Albans, Vt.,” 
on the Adams House register, on the 9th of June, 1874, and the 
Sunday following, in jail, at Rutland, under arrest, charged with 
murder, at the request of those seeking $2,500 and his life, again 
wrote upon a sheet of paper the same letters and words, so there 
was an exact correspondence in spaces and lines, so that the half 
of one would exactly match and fit the half of the other, then there 
occurred in that jail, on that Sabbath, what never has been accom- 105 
plished,by any other person since the dawn of creation, and what 
never will occur again. Such perfect exactness does not come 
from one not having a fixedness of hand-writing. 
In view of the importance of the issue raised by the indictment, 
and the plea of not guilty, and that the law gives to the respondent 
the benefit of every reasonable doubt, the respondent does not ask 
too much of the State of Vermont, and of this Court, in the prayer 
of his petition, that a new trial be granted. 
On the sth of February Chief Justice Pierpont rendered the 
opinion of the Court, as follows : 
We have received and considered everything that was shown be- 
fore the jury on the trial at which he was convicted, everything 
presented on his former petition for a new trial, everything before 
the Legislature, offered then as a reason for enacting the law 
under which the petition is made, and all the new evidence pro- 
cured for this hearing. We refer to this for the purpose of saying 
that the course we have taken in this case is not a precedent for 
future applications of this character. The goods were disposed of 
in Boston. The party transporting these goods to Boston, and then 
disposing of them, murdered Mrs, Freeze. That party must have 
left Rutland on the morning of the 7th of June. When the fact 
is established who took the property to Boston, you settle who com- 
mitted the murder. The property disposed of to the Boston pawn- 
brokers, and the half shawl at the Adams House, was confessedly 
that of Mrs. Freeze. All the parties who received this property in 
Boston testify, with more or less positiveness, that Phair was the 
man. When attention was called to the fact of the murder in a 
few days, and before the means of identification had passed out of 
their minds, and if they even could identify a man with whom they 
had dealings, the circumstances were such as to render their iden- 
tification reliable. They all testify, with more or less positiveness, 
that that man was Phair. There is always more or less doubt when 
a fact depends upon human recollection. There is always liability 
of mistakes when there is but one man’s unaided recollection ; but 
when several persons concur, who have seen the same man at differ- 
ent times, and under different circumstances, this concurrence 
strengthens the convictions that they are right, and removes doubt; 
when there is also the hand-writing on the pawn-ticket, where the 
name of E. F. Smith is signed, and the same name on the hotel 
register, and the same name written by Phair, we, have these names 
written under different circumstances, with different objects in 
view, so far as the writer was concerned. Comparing these names, 
so written, no man of intelligence could come to any other conclu- 
sion than that they were written by the same hand. When we 
find such a similarity in these names, written without any reference 
to each other, no conclusion can be reached but what they were 
written by the same person. The name on the register and the 
name written by Phair in jail, and supplement that the testi- 
mon}’ of the person who testified to seeing him and receiving of 
him the property, we have the fact established that Phair was the 
man who disposed of this property in Boston as nearly demon- 
strated as a demonstration can be made by a combination of cir- 
cumstances and human testimony. 106 
That Phair went to Boston on the 4 o’clock train is conceded. 
He claims he did not stop in Boston. If Phair went right through 
to Providence and did not stay all night in Boston, he was not the 
man who disposed of this property and registered at the Adams 
House. What is there to show that he went to Providence? 
There is evidence tending to show that he went to one depot from 
the other in Boston. There is no evidence from any person who 
testifies to seeing Phair from the time he was left by the Stewarts 
at the Providence depot until he was seen on the train on the 10th 
of June, coming this unless he was the E. F. Smith who stayed 
at the Adams House. His counsel have been wholly unable to find 
any man in Providence who has any recollection of him. Nothing 
is shown but what Phair had been in Providence before. At that 
time he had a sister living there. He did not go to see her this time, 
but no one testifies that he told them he was there soon after the 
war. There is a soldiers’ monument standing, which is the most 
prominent object of the localit}' where he says he stopped. It stood 
where he would have seen it if he was there. How natural for him 
to have described the locality by this most prominent object in it. 
Now, if Phair was there soon after the war, and was at that very 
place, and spent the night in that room, and saw the dog with the 
collar, and other things which he says he saw, he would have given 
the description he now gives and would have omitted all mention 
of the soldiers’ monument that was there in 1874, but was not there 
then. His description, omitting that, goes to show that he was 
describing it as it was before, and shows that he was there years 
before. His description of what he did and where he went in 
Providence had but little weight as bearing upon his being in Bos- 
ton and disposing of these things. 
The testimony most relied on, and which has done the most to 
bring the case here, is that of Downing. It seems to us that it is 
important that he should be able to testif}Tto something that would 
be of use to Phair before we should grant a new trial on the testi- 
mony. He has not sworn that Phair was the man he saw on the 
cars, and we see no reason to suppose he would swear to that as a 
fact. All we have, then, are these indefinite recollections of 
Downing. There is nothing in the form of evidence, in this tran- 
saction, that changes the face of what was before the jury before. 
Admitting all to be admissible we cannot tell what effect it might 
have on a jury. All we are called upon to do is to take the whole 
case as it now stands, and say what, in our judgment, a jury ought 
to say. As to the guilt of Phair we have no right to grant a new 
trial, unless this new evidence, in connection with the evidence in 
before, would, to our minds, cause a reasonable doubt that Phair is 
guilty. If it is not sufficient to raise such a reasonable doubt we 
cannot grant a new trial. As to the evidence of his being in 
Brandon on the Bth of June, we can only say that he might have 
been in Brandon as the evidence tends to show, come down on the 
night train and gone to Boston on the 4 o’clock train, and still have 
committed the murder. Taking the testimony before the jury be- 
fore, and all before us now, we are constrained to say, as reasonable 
men, that no evidence furnishing a reasonable doubt of the guilt of 
the respondent can be found. 107 
Judge Barrett, at the request of the Chief Justice, then made a 
careful view of the case and discussed some points not mentioned 
by the Chief Justice. 
The Proceedings for an Injunction. —On the 26th of March, 
1879, a hearing was had before Chancellor Redfleld, at Montpelier, 
on an application to enjoin the sheriff from executing Phair. The 
governor had the power to “ grant reprieves” under the constitu- 
tion, and no reference was made to this power in the statutes. 
The warrant was as follows : 
State of Vermont, 
Rutland County Supreme Court, 
January Term, 1877. 
STATE vs. JOHN P. PHAIR. 
To Surrey W. Stimson, Esq., Sheriff of Windsor County, in the State of 
Vermont: 
Whereas, J. P. Phair, of Rutland, in the County of Rutland aforesaid, by 
the consideration of the honorable the Supreme Court, holden at Rutland, 
within and for the County of Rutland, on the first Thursday after the fourth 
Tuesday in January, being the twenty-eighth day of January, in the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, was convicted of the 
crime of murder in the first degree, and has been sentenced by said Court in 
the words following, that is to say: “ That the said John P. Phair be hanged 
by the neck until dead; that this sentence be executed on the first Friday in 
April, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, between 
the hours of one o’clock and four, in the afternoon of said day, under a war- 
rant for that purpose to be hereafter issued by this Court as required by stat- 
ute • that in the meantime said John P. Phair be confined in the State Prison 
at Windsor, in the County of Windsor, in the State of Vermont, for a period 
of two years from this fourth day of February A.D. 1875, and until said sen- 
tence of death is executed ; that during the first twenty months of said period 
of term of confinement said John P. Phair be confined to hard labor in said 
prison and for the remainder of said term preceding said time of execution in 
solitary confinement in said prison.” 
Now, therefore, by the authority of the State of Vermont, you are hereby 
commanded that upon the first Friday of April, being the sixth day of April, 
Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, between the 
hours of one and four o’clock on the afternoon of said day, within the walls of 
the State Prison at Windsor, in the County of Windsor, State of Vermont, 
within the enclosed yard of said State Prison, agreeably to the provisions of 
the statute laws of the State of Vermont, you will cause execution of said 
sentence of said Court in all respects to be done and performed upon the body 
of him the said John P. Phair, for which this shall be your sufficient warrant. 
Given under ray hand, pursuant to the order, and under the seal, of said 
Supreme Court, at Rutland, in the County of Rutland, aforesaid, this sixth day 
of February, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven. 
HENRY H. SMITH, 
Clerk of the Supreme Court. 
The sentence is set forth in the warrant. The “ statute law ” 
provided that “ the sheriff shall, at the time named in the warrant, 
commit the execution, unless the sentence shall previously have 
been commuted by the Legislature.” 
The Bill in Equity, which was very carefully prepared b}T C. B. 
Eddy, Esq., set forth the sentence, the warrant, and the reprieves 
(which have heretofore been published), and prayed that the sheriff 
be enjoined from executing the orator on the 4th of April, 1879. 
Col. W. G. Veazey, Samuel W. McCall, and James C. Barrett 
appeared for the orator. 108 
Mr. Barrett read the bill and made the following argument: 
First. As to a Bill in Chancery for an injunction being a proper 
remedy: There can be nothing to the objection which has been 
suggested, that Chancery has no jurisdiction of Criminal Law. 
This proceeding has nothing whatever to do with Criminal Law, 
Here is a man in confinement from which he cannot escape 
whether rightful confinement or not does not effect the question ; 
claiming that another, without lawful authority, is threatening to 
take advantage of that confinement, to inflict a civil tort upon his 
person a trespass of the most direful kind, an irreparable injury 
to him. He has no other remedy to avert that injury. Here is a 
right of the highest nature the right of life. The unlawful de- 
privation of that right is threatened. If there is no other remedy, 
this remedy is clearly, undeniably, proper and necessary. It is 
the very spirit and function of equity to grant such remedies, in 
order to protect such rights. It must be so. 
Secondly.—The question is suggested whether the terms of the 
papers claimed to be reprieves are such as to constitute them re- 
prieves. The word reprieve does not appear in any form in either 
of them. 
Thirdly. —As to the validity of the warrant under which the 
injury is threatened. Is the old warrant dead? The sentence is 
for an execution “ under a warrant for that purpose to he hereafter 
issued . ... as required by Statute 
That warrant, when so issued, was for an execution “ agreeably 
to the provisions of the Statute Laws of the State of Vermont.” 
Accordingly, the sheriff, at the very utmost, is, virtue of that 
warrant, at liberty to look only into the “ Statute Laws” to ascer- 
tain his authority. But there is nothing whatever in the statutes 
about reprieve, or about a death-warrant being valid for a different 
day from that named therein. The power of reprieve is conferred 
by the Constitution. But there is nothing even in the Constitu- 
tion about the effect of a reprieve to keep a warrant alive. 
The Statute prescribes a warrant absolutely inflexible in point of 
time. And the warrant in question is, by its own terras, inflexible 
in point of time. It authorizes the execution on one fixed day, and 
on no other; and neither the Statute, nor even the Constitution, 
gives it effect on any other day. The day of its death was uncon- 
ditionally and irrevocably nominated by the power that gave it 
life. That day has passed, and there is no provision to resuscitate 
it. 
It is of no force to say that the end practically to be accomplished 
in this matter of execution of men convicted of murder would be 
most easily and conveniently accomplished by having a flexible 
warrant, or by construing this to be such. The fact is against 
it. For the warrant, by its terms is not so, and there is nothing 
outside of itself to make it so. 
Neither is the idea that a convict would be left on the expiration 
of the reprieve, subject to the consequences of his conviction, of 
any force in favor of the old warrant as a sufficient authority for 
MR. BARRETT’S ARGUMENT. 109 
the execution of the death penalty upon him, on any other day 
than that named in that warrant. This proceeding is not at all 
directed to the proposition that one convicted of murder and 
reprieved would not be subject, by proper methods, to the con- 
sequences of his conviction, but merely to the proposition that, 
notwithstanding he might be lawfully executed upon some other 
warrant, yet upon the old one he cannot be, for the da}r, and the 
only day upon which it authorized, execution has passed. It now 
has nothing to apply to. 
The idea of a reprieve contains no implication of a continuance 
or revival of an old warrant, imparting to the warrant an operation 
outside of its own terms, and outside of the terms of the “ Statute 
Law” to which it refers. The reprieve itself simply suspends the 
execution of the death-penalty. But as it causes the warrant to 
go unexecuted on the only day named therein, the warrant expires 
by force of its own limitation. When the reprieve expires, then 
the penalty may be inflicted if another proper and sufficient war- 
rant be obtained. A reprieve can not supply its place, or have 
the same effect. 
In some States the governor can reprieve, and also issue a warrant 
or order for execution. In Vermont the governor can reprieve only. 
His reprieve leaves the case in the same situation, so far as the 
warrant is concerned, as if no warrants had ever been issued. If 
the Courts allow the governor to issue a new warrant or order, or 
(what is the same thing, requiring equal power) revive an old one 
which is entirely dead by its own terms, it is, by the judicial inser- 
tion of that provision into the Constitution itself, not by judicial 
legislation merely, but by constitution-making. The provision in 
the Constitution stands absolutely naked as the “power to grant 
reprieves.” Anything further must be by sheer judicial addition. 
Upon the reprieve, the sheriff should have returned the old war- 
rant to the Court issuing it, with his return indorsed, showing the 
cause of not executing it. 
Even an ordinary execution to be levied upon property, if the 
levy be enjoined and the injunction not dissolved until the time 
limited in the execution has expired, is not revived upon the dis- 
solution of the injunction, but a new execution is necessary. 
Independently of any claim that a reprieve continues or revives 
the old warrant, it cannot be claimed that time is not of the es- 
sence of the warrant. The law would not tolerate that the sheriff 
should either take a man’s life before the day set, or give him 
longer life than the law gave him. The former would be murder, 
and the latter cause for impeachment. It would be intolerable 
and unconscionable to leave the time of execution as a matter 
merely directory and not mandatory, and subject to the possible 
caprice of the sheriff. 
The Statute which provides for the warrant undertakes to pro- 
vide for one contingency affecting a warrant, namely, commuta- 
tion. The omission of the Legislature to provide for another 
contingency upon precisely the same subject-matter, is conclusive, 
under the rules of judicial construction, that the omission was in- 
tended. It cannot be supplied by the Courts. And even the pro- 110 
vision for the contingency mentioned in the Statute furnishes no 
analogy from which to claim that the Legislature, in any case, 
provided for or contemplated the continued or revived force 
of an old warrant after the day named therein. There is not 
a word there, or elsewhere in the Statutes, or even in the Consti- 
tution, about the continued or revived force of such warrant. Ac- 
cordingly, there being no statutory or constitutional provision for 
such operation of the old warrant, the common law, under the 
amiliar rule touching its adoption by us, must be resorted to for 
authority. The cases to be cited are to the effect that, by the com- 
mon law, the old warrant would be insufficient. We claim, there- 
fore, that the old warrant in this case is insufficient. It is dead 
by default of life in itself and of any power outside of itself to 
give it life beyond what it has of itself. 
The authority for all proceedings in invitum must be construed 
with the utmost strictness. 
MR. McCALL’S ARGUMENT. 
Mr. McCall then addressed the Court and reviewed the evidence 
in the following manner: 
The simple question at issue here is, has the the sheriff of 
Windsor County any sufficient legal authority to execute John P. 
Phair on the 4th of April next? The law protects Phair’s life 
equally with that of any citizen, until taken in accordance with its 
decrees and forms. It would be murder for any one deliberately 
to kill Phair, although he may be under sentence of death, unless 
by virtue of a clear warrant of law. (East & Hawkins’s Pleas of the 
Crown.) The sheriff’s warrant and the statutes which govern his 
conduct should be construed strictly, Ist, because they are what 
the law terms odious (Bishop on statutory crimes, Chief Justice 
Marshall in 5 Wheaton, 76) ; 2d, because the act to be performed 
is in derogation of common right; 3d, because these statutes and 
warrants are penal. The rule which requires strict construction 
of penal statutes depends on a reasonable expectation that when 
the Legislature intends so grave a matter as the infliction of suffer- 
ing or an encroachment upon natural liberty or right, or the grant 
of exceptionable powers, it will not leave its intention to be 
gathered by mere doubtful inference, or convey it in dark or cloudy 
words, but will express it plainly and explicitly. A suspicious 
scrutiny of words, or those hostile conclusions from ambiguity or 
from what is left unexpressed, are not justified. (Maxwell on 
Stat. Interpretation, 334.) The grant of a power to take the life 
of a man is a most exceptional power, since it is a grant to com- 
mit that which, without it, would be the highest crime known to 
the law. For any one or all of these three reasons, therefore, the 
alleged right of the sheriff to execute Phair should be most 
strictly scrutinized. 
The warrant sets forth the fact that Phair was sentenced to be 
executed on the 6th of April, 1877, “under a warrant for that 
purpose to be hereafter issued by this Court, as required by stat- 
ute.” It will be material to the discussion hereafter to remember, 111 
that under this part of the sentence the execution cannot be com- 
mitted by virtue of any reprieve. The warrant then commands 
the sheriff to execute, according to the “ statute law,” on the 6th 
of April, 1877. The expression “ statute law” does not leave 
to the sheriff the liberty to ransack the laws of England or even 
the Constitution of his State. It is the expression of the law- 
declaring power, which is presumed to use legal words according 
to their proper meaning, and it certainly does not rest with the 
sheriff, a mere servant of the Court, to impute to his master any 
ignorance, or to revise its decrees. Now, nothing is said in the 
“ stafute law ” concerning reprieve, but the whole injunction 
as to time is, that the sheriff shall commit the execution at the 
time named in the warrant, unless the sentence shall previously 
have been commuted. Obviously, then, according to the sentence, 
the warrant, and the “ statute law,” his right is only to execute on 
the 6th of April, 1877. But, granting to the sheriff the right to 
go beyond the warrant and statutes to the Constitution, and to all 
other laws, he can find no authority for executing. The Constitu- 
tion confers upon the governor the power of reprieve. It is a 
rule of law that statutes are to be construed with Constitutions. 
But it is an equally well settled rule that construction of a statute 
with a Constitution, is not to be permitted so as to give the stat- 
ute a meaning outside of its terms. The statute in question is 
clear, and only in cases of ambiguity are even Courts granted the 
right to impose a forced construction, and seek for the intention of 
the Legislature outside of the words of the statute. No principle 
is more firmly established than the rule which declares, when a 
statute is unambiguous, that the Legislature shall be intended to 
mean just what it has plainly expressed. In a recent case it was 
held that where the intent is ambiguous, and the effort to arrive at 
it is hopeless, and in those cases only does the power of construing 
a statute strictly or literally exist. The intent of the Legislature, 
according to these rules, is clear. No provision whatever has been 
made for the execution of a man who has been reprieved, and it is 
to be inferred that no such provision was intended. In addition 
to this, it will be seen that the Legislature has expressed one con- 
tingency, viz., commutation, and this is the only other contin- 
gency than reprieve that could occur and leave the convict within 
the sheriff’s reach. Had neither commutation nor reprieve been 
mentioned in the statute, there might then exist some ground for 
grafting the constitutional provisions upon it, although then the 
statute would be inconsistent with the sentence. But commuta- 
tion is mentioned. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The 
fact that the Legislature has expressed the provision in regard to 
commutation excludes the presumption that it meant the power of 
reprieve to be implied. But granting that the statute is defective, 
it is not competent for a court, much less for a sheriff to supply a 
casus omissus, or defect. It was then held at length that the 
words of the statute should be construed strictly, and that the 
degree of strictness depends upon the severity of the penalty. 
The construction should be strictissimi juris in favor of life. 
In view, therefore, of the direction of the best authorities, it 112 
would be holding a most extreme doctrine to say that the words 
of this statute are simply directory, and that the sheriff may dis- 
regard them. Time is held to be a material part of the judgment 
in a sentence of death, and that the sheriff commits homicide if 
he vai-y from the judgment in committing execution. (Hawkins’ 
Pleas, and Foster, 107.) There could be no authority found 
among all the cases of usurpation of legislative powers by Courts 
that would sustain the claim that, where time is so much of the 
essence of the act, where the transaction is of so grave a nature, 
where the wording of the court’s mandate is so explicit, the words 
of a statute and warrant in such a case are not to be construed 
strictly. There now exists in the sheriff, therefore, no authority 
by virtue of the warrant or of the sentence of the Court or of the 
statute laws of the State. The execution of sentence was delayed 
by the reprieve, but the warrant was not, and from its nature could 
not be. The sheriff cannot execute by virtue of the reprieve, first, 
because such an execution would not be in pursuance of the sen- 
tence ; second, because the governor has not the power to issue a 
warrant, and his delay of execution beyond the time named in the 
warrant throws the convict into the hands of the Court; third, be- 
cause a law of 1878 applicable to this case was enacted, providing 
for the issuance of an order or warrant of execution. No such 
warrant has been issued ; fourth, because the common law rule is, 
that in cases of reprieve the convict should be again called into 
court to show cause why execution should not take place; fifth, 
because the reprieve simply commands the sheriff to “ delay execu- 
tion until the 4th of April, 1877.” At the expiration of that time 
the sheriff is thrown back upon his legal rights. The reprieve con- 
fers no new powers. It is an accident so far as the sheriff is 
concerned. He may look on and wonder at this, to him, super- 
natural intervention ; but when he comes to act he must remember 
that his authority is bounded by the sentence, the warrant, and the 
“ statute law.” Equity can properly take cognizance of this case. 
There is no adequate remedy at law. It is not to prevent a crime 
as a crime, but to prevent it as a tort. Equity will grant relief 
against an impending trespass upon a civil right where the damage 
would be irreparable. It cannot be claimed that the magnitude of 
the tort would take the case out of the remedy, but on the other 
hand would more loudly call out for the remedy. Phair has a right 
to protect his life from all violence not legal, and the simple 
question at issue here is, would the Sheriff in executing Phair com- 
mit a tort as well as a crime, and is that tort irreparable ? If so, 
all the fundamental and humane principles of equity sanction this 
remedy. If the man must be hung, let it be by virtue of a clear 
and unquestionable warrant of law and under no ambiguous or 
contradictory or implied processes that may require the authorities 
of the State to commit a crime in order to punish a crime. 
Chancellor Redfield reserved his decision until the 28th of 
March, when he dismissed the bill without giving any extended 
opinion. 
THE END. APPENDIX. 
On Thursday, April 3d, Governor Proctor granted to Phalr a 
further reprieve of six days upon an application by Phair’s counsel 
based upon an affidavit of M. D. Downing. The reprieve was 
granted to enable the convict to have this affidavit passed upon by 
the court. Accordingly, on the evening of April Bth, a hearing 
was begun at St. Johnsbury, before Judges Ross and Powers, for 
leave to file a petition for a new trial and for a stay of execution. 
The State was represented by Hon. E. J. Ormsbee and State’s At- 
torney Lawrence; and Hon, C. B. Eddy, Hon. D. E. Nicholson, 
S. W. McCall, Esq., and James C. Barrett, Esq., appeared for 
Phair. 
The affidavit of Downing was to the effect that he went to Wind- 
sor on the 2d day of April and saw John P. Phair ; that, after con- 
versing with him, he became convinced that Phair was the man 
whom he met on the train coming from Providence to Boston on 
the 10th day of June, 1874; that he identified Phair not only by 
his personal appearance but also by questions and answers as to 
the part of the car they sat in, the manner in which Downing then 
wore his whiskers, etc. ; that Phair had whiskers and moustache as 
when he [Downing] saw him on the Providence train ; that Phair 
answered correctly all questions, and in appearance was but 
slightly changed ; that he could not help recognizing him, and was 
certain Phair was the man he met that time. Affidavits were also 
presented of the following : 
Solon Burroughs had expended considerable time and money on 
detective work as to the whereabouts of Aurelia Brooks, after the 
murder of Mrs. Freeze; had been unable to trace said Brooks in 
the State of Vermont, with but two exceptions, since June, 1874 ; 
once, she was seen at Yergennes for a very short time, and again 
was at Burlington to get clothes of hers which her mother had ; 
when the clothes, which had been bloody and were washed by Mrs. 
MacLaughlin, were presented to her, she said, “I don’t want; 
I shan’t touch.” 
Conductor Putney, of the Cheshire R.R., testified that the Buffalo 
Bill Opera Troupe came on the train from Rutland on which Phair 
arrived. 
One Hardy, of Keene, swore that James G. Pierce was a profes- 
sional gambler; that he was known as Captain Kidd, from the fact 
that he had once been a pirate, and that he had been in State’s 
prison ; that he had no reputation for truth and veracity, and could 
not be believed even under oath. 
Robert J. Loheed, of Boston, testified that on the 6th of April, 
1877, his attention was excited by the “ Globe” bulletin, and that 
when he went to the office of his emplo}rer, M. D. Downing, about 
10.30 on that morning, he called Mr. Downing’s attention to the 
extraordinary bulletin. Downing then sent him for a “Globe,” 
and on returning he read Phair’s statement. On reading the 
account of the trip to Providence, Downing said, “ Read that 
again.” He did so. Downing appeared much excited; got up 114 
and took some old memorandum-books out of a drawer, and soon 
after went out hurriedly ; he acted as if he were insane. 
The State introduced the affidavit of Superintendent Rice, of the 
Vermont State prison, which was to the effect that Phair and 
Downing were introduced to each other on the 2d of April, 1879, 
and that no formal test was made. Arguments for Phair were then 
made b}T Messrs. Barrett, McCall, and Nicholson, and for the State 
by Messrs. Ormsbee and Lawrence. The judges then withdrew, 
and, after a short consultation, dismissed the petition. 
Judge Ross, in rendering his opinion, reviewed Downing’s testi- 
mony. The long lapse of time and the changed appearance of 
Phair rendered an identification uncertain and not strongly 
reliable. Then Abrams, who positively identified Phair about 
the time of the pawning, was unassailed. 
The clerk at the Adams House saw a man write E. F. Smith on 
the register, and he saw Phair a month later, and was pretty posi- 
tive that he was the man who wrote on the register. Then the 
clerk found Mrs. Freeze’s half-shawl in the room occupied by the 
man who signed E. F. Smith, There was a similarity of the writ- 
ing— the defence claim too similar; but it is just as improbable 
that different men wrote so much alike. Pierce’s testimony was 
severely attacked, but the goods identified as Mrs. Freeze’s and 
the name E. F. Smith on the pawn-ticket were in his possession. 
While we would like to decide the other way, wre feel that the 
Court would not consider the evidence sufficient for a new trial. 
We do not feel as though we were passing sentence, but simply as 
passing on new evidence. 
His Honor, Judge Powers, after an exhaustive analysis of the 
evidence adduced on the trial concluded the opinion in substance as 
follows : In this petition nothing more of importance appears than on 
the former hearings, except that the evidence of Downing is more 
positive, that is, he gives the same evidence in more positive terms. 
We are unable to see how any fair jury could say they saw au}r 
doubt of Phair’s guilt, even if all the new evidence was included. 
One thing is conceded by all, viz.: That the person pawning the 
goods must have committed the murder. The goods were pawned 
by E. F. Smith, and Phair was indentified at Rutland as E. F. 
Smith by Boston witnesses. Abrams was positive that Phair Avas 
E. F. Smith. Donovan did not positively iudentify Phair, j-et the 
half-shawl of Mrs. Freeze was found in room 61, occupied by E. 
F. Smith. There is again the handwriting; it is said to be Phair’s. 
The evidence of experts shows that Phair Avrote both F. F. Smith 
on the Adams House register and on the pawn-ticket; also in 
Rutland Jail. Taking this evidence of the handAvriting and the 
identification by the paAvnbrokers, the case against Phair is, with- 
out question, conclusive to establish his guilt. Phair now presents 
testimony to prove an alibi. 
Downing now identifies Phair as the man he met on the ProAU- 
dence train. Downing, AAdthout question, is honest. While the 
identification and the unquestioned lapse of time naturally weaken 
the force of the testimony, the decision is reached, after a careful 
review of all the evidence in the case, and, while we believe firmly 
in the honesty of purpose of counsel and Mr. Carrigan, avc cannot 115 
conclude other than that the evidence here presented does not war- 
rant us in granting the petitioner’s prayer; and on this ground the 
petition is dismissed. 
Accordingly, on the 10th of April, 1879, nearly five years after 
the commission of the murder, Phair was executed fn Windsor prison. 
THE EXECUTION. 
As it was not the purpose of the author to discuss the life 
of Phair, or detail his history other than that found in his “ dying 
statement,” it will be sufficient in conclusion to briefly note the 
preparations at Windsor which terminated the convict’s sad and 
unfortunate life. It will be remembered that on the 6th day of April, 
1877, by a reprieve of his Excellency, Horace Fairbanks, Governor, 
Phair, while calmly awaiting the executioner’s command, was 
snatched from the hangman within twenty-four minutes of the 
hour appointed for execution. Following the reprieve of April 6th 
for four weeks, on the 3d of May the doomed man was again 
granted a lease of life till April 4, 1879. On the evening of April 
3d, the sheriff again informed the doomed man that a respite had 
been ordered for six days. Without apparent concern the convict 
received the glad tidings, and, thanking the official, retired for the 
night. The interim was passed in penning additional farewell 
missives, and in the more thorough revision of his last statement. 
When the decision of the Court of St. Johnsbury was given him, 
Phair telegraphed his spiritual adviser, Rev. Geo. Pratt, of St. 
Albans, and immediately sent for his counsel and the prison 
chaplain, Rev. Mr. Mick, of Windsor. 
At an early hour the morning of the 10th, Phair had completed 
his statement and correspondence, and with his spiritual advisers 
passed his last hours in prayer and preparation for the scaffold. In 
the mean time, and while the gibbet was being erected the fourth 
time for Phair’s execution, the prisoner’s counsel were pleading 
before the Governor at Southerland Falls for further respite that 
the case might be considered for commutation by the Legislature, 
and thus, as was urged, save the possibility of Vermont’s shedding 
innocent blood. About one o’clock a telegram was received from 
the Governor’s Secretary, announcing that no delay of the execu- 
tion would be ordered. In taking farewell of his counsel and 
friends, some forty minutes before the springing of the fatal trap, 
a person present, who had befriended the convict and spent time 
and means unsparingly in his defence, made a most earnest appeal, 
and begged the doomed man not to die without confessing. If he 
did not commit the murder he should, as a return for what had 
been done for him during his misfortune, give some light if possi- 
ble, that the mysteries of the case might be cleared, and the 
truth revealed. With tremulous voice and in tears, the doomed 
man called on God to witness that he spoke truthfully. 
In concluding his protestations of innocence, the prisoner de- 
tailed in substance what he stated on the 6th of April, 1877, a few 
minutes before the hour appointed for execution, which was as 
follows: —“I know my life has not been what it should have been ; 
but, notwithstanding my misgivings, God knows I am innocent and 116 
I never harmed anybody. I could tell much more than will appear 
in my statement. There are those who know this too well. They 
know I was comparatively a stranger to this woman, yet she told 
me about her visitors, and how they gave her what she called 
“hush money” and “social presents.” They know she wanted 
me for a confident. That I could have had all her property by 
merely asking for it. They know I had no motive to commit this 
crime. I don’t care to expose names for useless publication. I 
have no desire to disgrace their families. As it may assist my 
friends in discovering the guilty ones, I will leave the names. 
(Here names of persons residing in Rutland and vicinity were 
given.) Some of them fear another trial. It would expose their 
infidelity and crime. The State gave me 820 for my defence. 
Poverty and perjury convicted me. I appreciate my helpless con- 
dition. I am well prepared. It is a fearful death, but in my 
innocence I shall die happy. 
Four times I have been notified to prepare for execution; this 
I am convinced is the last. I have given up all hope ; I have suf- 
fered the past two years more than death; my sufferings will soon 
be over ; I shall then be happy ; I hope God will forgive my enemies ; 
they are guilty of murder; I die a man not a murderer; I 
shall try to meet it bravely ; and I know I shall have support till 
the last. The State is bound to have me hung ; I hope my execu- 
tion will be the last; many, I have no doubt, think me guiltj'; in 
the sight of Heaven I am innocent; I freely forgive all who have 
injured me. If I was guilty, those who know me best, know I would 
have confessed long ago. You have done all in your power to save 
me lam sorry I cannot return what you and my counsel have 
done. If I knew anything, I would tell you. Aurelia Brooks may be 
guilty. I do not know it. Some day my innocence will be as clearly 
known to man as to God, in whose presence I am soon to stand.” 
Dressed in black, at a few minutes before two o’clock, the solemn 
procession moved from the prison cell to the scaffold, when the 
doomed man passed through the ordeal without bravado, but with 
firmness and Christian-like fortitude. 
When standing on the drop and asked if he had anything to say, 
he said, “ I am sorry to die, but not so sorry as if I had committed 
the crime for which I am to die ; what more I have to say is con- 
tained in this statement which I leave in the hands of my counsel.” 
He then handed the manuscript to the sheriff, and at 2.11, while 
repeating the words, “Lord, remember me,” the trap fell, and in 
eleven minutes the life of John P. Phair was extinct. 
The remains enclosed in a casket, with flowers contributed by 
the prison-guards, were conveyed to his mother in Vergennes, Ver- 
mont, where, on the following Saturday they were interred in the 
family ground. 
The following, which is the last statement of John P. Phair, was 
given for publication to the Boston Journal, in whose columns 
it appeared exclusively on the 14th of April, four days after the 
execution. 
CONCLUSION. 117 
The Last Statement. 
In view of my rapidly approaching death, I deem it my duty to 
make the following supplement to my anticipated last statement, 
which was published in the “ Boston Daily Globe ” on the morning 
of April 6, 1877, the day on which I was to have been executed 
for the murder of a poor disreputable woman whom, God knows, 
I have never harmed by either word or deed. What has transpired 
since the publication of that statement— the truth of which I have 
lived to see corroborated, almost in full, by reputable witnesses 
is well known to the world. 
Two years ago I was compelled to undergo the same painful 
ordeal through which I am now patiently passing, excepting the 
last act in the drama which was to rob me of my life. My solemn 
protestations of innocence had been given to the world on the 
morning of the day fixed for my execution, and at noon all further 
hope of life was dismissed from m}r mind. But, as it is well known 
to all a just and merciful God had willed otherwise, and at the 
last moment rescued me from the jaws of an unjust and ignominious 
death by unearthing evidence which was legally mine, and could 
have been presented to the jury at the time of my trial, if I had 
only had the means to use in looking it up. Gov. Fairbanks 
God bless him for his humane act! reprieved me from the 6th day 
of April, 1877, until the 4th day of May, during which time an 
official investigation disclosed sufficient evidence in my behalf to 
warrant a second reprieve, which was granted until April 4, 1879, 
in order that my evidence, and that claimed by the prosecution 
against me, might be reviewed by the Legislature of 1878, In 
October last my claims were presented to that body of law-makers 
by able, earnest counsel, and on the petition of more than 15,000 
people praying that a new trial might be granted me. The assem- 
bly at first seemed to feel the importance and justness of my claims, 
but still staggered under the thought of establishing a precedent by 
granting me a new trial outright, whether innocent or guilty. 
Finally a law was passed which opened the doors of the Court. 
On the 17th of January, 1879, my counsel presented my petition to 
Judges Eo}me and Redfield, who decided that I had made out a 
prima facie case, and forthwith granted me leave to petition the 
same court, and the same members of said court, excepting one, 
who had denied my former application for a new trial. This court 
heard my petition and evidence, together with the so-called State’s 
evidence against me, at Rutland, on the 3d day of last February. 
The Court were most liberal in admitting evidence offered by my 
counsel, and, as I am informed, gave the application a patient con- 
sideration. Ido not impute to any member of the Court a deter- 
mination, or even a desire, to wrong me. I have feared there ma}'- 
have been a prejudice against me in the minds of some members of 
the bench, owing to my wrong-doing in m}r earlier life, and to the 
malicious publications of all manner of false accusations against me. 
I feared, and now believe, these things operated against me, and 
robbed me of the opportunity to secure such a result as I think as 
a condemned man I was entitled to. 
In praying the Court to set aside the verdict reached by the jury 
on my trial, which was forced upon me under exceeding adverse 118 
circumstances, and grant me a new trial, I did not do so with a 
consciousness of guilt, but as an innocent man, who felt that he had 
by the laws of civilization an undeniable right to a trial by jury on 
evidence which he not only feels assured, but thousands upon 
thousands of others believe, would to-day acquit and exonerate him 
before any unbiased court and jury in this country. I did not think 
that the Commonwealth of Vermont could be moved to the blood- 
thirsty attitude she has taken against one of her subjects by the per- 
jured representations of scheming reward-seekers and so-called 
detectives. As murder by false testimony is the most aggravated 
species of murder, it cannot be justified in either heaven or earth ; 
and that I am a helpless victim of such God bears me witness, and 
will ever hold my persecutors strictly accountable to Him for the 
great wrong they have done me, and against which, incarcerated in 
prison as I have been, and afflicted with poverty, I have not been 
able to successfully contend. Wherever I found a friend among 
journalists, the bitterness of my enemies led them to stigmatize such 
as “ Boston Bohemians,” because the}7 conscientiously questioned 
the integrity of the disreputable band of pawnbrokers, and the hon- 
esty of the two scheming reward-hunters, the self-appointed, so- 
called detectives, who, with the purse of the State at their command, 
were able to crush my hopes and ruin my chances for an impartial 
trial, and my chances for such relief from my fate as I sought and 
thousands believed me entitled to. 
This is the reason why I could have no new trial, but must hang 
in order to make it appear to the world that it is impossible for a 
Vermont jury to convict an innocent man, and much more so for a 
poor condemned man to have been by bitter prejudice deprived of 
the benefit of the reasonable doubt which the law gave him in his 
fearful situation. My extreme poverty was well known to the 
Court. The law only allowed the State to award me S2O to make 
my defence, while nearly $5,000 was most freely yielded to secure 
my conviction, and upon evidence most cruelly false. My claims 
were ably and faithfully presented by my counsel, who charitably 
gave their services in my defence. The result is the false evidence 
has been honored, and I must submit to the forfeiture of my life. 
In offering his opinion, the Chief Justice laid great stress on the 
fact of my not taking the witness-stand and testifying in my own 
behalf, which was no fault of mine, but an error on the part of my 
counsel, who forbid my doing as I had intended. He further said 
that, “ admitting all that is claimed, the question for the Court to 
decide is, not what a jury might say as to the evidence before us, 
but what, in our judgment, they ought to say.” 
But I don’t believe that any unbiased jury in this country would 
render such a verdict on the evidence which was presented to the 
Court. The Court was informed by the prosecuting attorneys that 
if a new trial was granted me I never could be convicted. They 
were right about that, and had the Court been interested enough to 
ask them the reason why I could not be convicted, they would 
have urged, as a last plea, their inability to get the unsound evi- 
dence which convicted me repeated on a second trial, which is true 
enough. In denying my application for a new trial in February, 
1875, the Court rendered an opinion that if the newly discovered 119 
evidence which was presented with my petition had been given to 
the jury on ray trial, it would not, in the Court’s opinion, have 
changed the verdict. The Court’s opinion on the second and last 
application was, that, “ admitting all that is claimed, the question 
for the Court to decide was not what a jury might say as to the 
evidence before them, but what in their judgement they ought to 
say.” It would seem, then, by this, that the Court has a right, per- 
haps in case of emergency only, to act as both judge and jury, in 
the very face of a law which guarantees to every person accused of 
crime a right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury composed of 
twelve men. Now, if this is correct, the question in my mind is 
whether or not I have been legally denied a new trial. 
To me the feeling is irresistible, that in the court I have found no 
protector. I have from the first believed, and now more than ever 
believe, that the so-called detectives, Thornton and Stearns, have 
in their possession evidence, which would go far toward proving 
my innocence if not wholly exonerate me before the Courts and 
the world. The fact that they suppressed important evidence in 
my behalf relative to my trip to Providence, on my trial, makes 
this belief irresistibly strong. The affidavit of Stearns, which was 
presented to the Supreme Court at the recent hearing of my peti- 
tion and new evidence at Rutland, purporting to be an admission 
made by me to him while under arrest at Rutland, nearly five 
3-ears ago that I was in Providence shortly after, or about the 
close of the late war, was the most bare-faced perjury conceivable, 
and fairly crowned all his former perjmy in the case. I had never 
been in the cit3' of Providence previous to the afternoon, or even- 
ing of June 9,1874, and no other person in the world save Stearns 
can be found who would testify that I had ever made such an ad- 
mission to him or her in m3’ life. The object of that false affidavit 
was to depreciate the honest corroborative testimon3'of Mr. 
M. D. Downing, whom I met and conversed with on the cars between 
Providence and Boston in the forenoon of June 10, 1874. 
In conclusion, I cannot help regretting, more than I can express, 
the tragical termination of this sad affair which has so long agitated 
the public mind, and brought needless suffering and sorrow upon 
m3' relatives, friends, and m3'self; and could I have at any time felt or 
known that any act of mine was directly or the cause of 
bringing about so ignoble a result, I am sure that I would long 
since ceased to exist from the effects of an overwhelming remorse 
of conscience. But innocent as I am, I could do no other than 
manfully stand up and repel the base assaults of m3' persecutors 
with such weapons as the Almight3' saw fit to place within m3r 
reach ; and in doing so I have acted from a sense of dut3’ to God, 
who gave me life to enjoy in common with my fellow-men so long 
as I obe3'ed his sixth commandment, the violation of which would 
alone forfeit m3' right of life under both human and divine law. 
When m3T claims were presented to the Legislature, my enemies 
again accused me of an attempt to secure a commutation of my 
sentence to imprisonment for life, which was false. I did not 
appeal to that honorable bod3' for either a commutation of sen- 
tence, S3'mpathy, or mercy, but for strict justice ; and these were m3T 
express instructions to my counsel at the time. If the3' asked for 120 
more, they were probably led to do so by the temper of the Assem- 
bly, which had, in a great degree, become sullen over the persistent 
efforts of friends who were endeavoring to get the sentence of every 
condemned man in the State prison commuted to imprisonment for 
life. 
Before closing, I wish to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to all 
persons who have, by either word or deed, done what they could 
toward securing me a new trial and justice. These friends are so 
numerous that time and space forbid my mentioning in this article 
only those who have taken the most prominent parts in my defence. 
Among them, my heartfelt thanks are especially due to Hon. D. E. 
Nicholson, Col. W. G-. Veazey, and James C. Barrett, Esq., of 
Rutland; Hon. C. B. Eddy, of Bellow’s Falls, and S. W. McCall, 
Esq., of Boston, my counsel; Col. Charles H. Taylor, andM. P. 
Curran, Esq., of the Boston “Globe,” and. Mr. E. C. Carrigan, 
formerly a representative of the “ Globe,” but now of the Boston 
Journal. 
Mr. Carrigan has, from the time of my first reprieve, proven 
himself an earnest advocate of my cause as well as a warm and 
faithful friend. An own brother could have been no more earnest 
than he has been in all legal efforts to secure me justice. His fail- 
ure in this in no way lessens m37 great obligation to him, and I 
feel that no lover of the cause of justice and humanity can help re- 
specting the honorable and fearless position, from the first, taken 
b}r him and faithfully sustained until the last. M37 thanks are also 
due to the humane Prison Directors, Superintendent, and their sub- 
ordinate officers of 1877 and ’7B, for kindness received at their 
hands at all times during their administration under Gov. Fairbanks. 
I feel that I have faithfulty discharged my highest dut}7 to 
God and m3' fellow-man under all the circumstances which have 
attended m3’ painful misfortune, and therefore am in no waj7 re- 
sponsible to m37 Maker for the loss of m37 life. I have at last 
spoken plainly, because the occasion and truth demand that I 
should. I have alwa37s said, and will finalty say, that I never 
harmed the unfortunate Anna E. Freeze, of whose death I am un- 
justly accused, by either word or deed, in her lifetime. Neither 
have I appropriated to or for any person whomsoever, one 
pin’s worth of propertj’, jewels, or any article whatsoever belong- 
ing to the poor woman. I have, in common with other 3Toung 
as well as some old—men, made mistakes in life for which I sought 
and obtained forgiveness at the time. But, thanks be to God, the 
mistake of taking a human life, or ever attempting such a thing, is 
not among them, as my final Judge can attest. No man could 
have been more wrongfully accused in this respect than I have 
been b37 a certain ring who were bent on m37 destruction, right or 
wrong, and they have succeeded, but by what means the Supreme 
Judge of all shall decide. In the mean time I freel37 forgive all my 
enemies yes, even the ver37 worst of them; and if I have ever 
wronged any person in my lifetime, whose forgiveness I have not 
alreacty asked and obtained, I now ask it in all sincerity. All hopes 
of human justice are exhausted, and death is inevitable. 
(Signed) JOHN P. PH AIR. 
Windsor Prison, April 10, 1879. v DfllliY jOaOTIi;IH- 
Mhe Best Newspaper published in New 
|F* England. Every person in Vermont 
should read it. 
Order of your News Agent or direct from the Office. 
Daily, $9.00; Semi-weekly, $4.00; Weekly, $1.50 per year. 
Airess, Journal Newspaper Co., Boston, lass. 
%¥m Jtmtoa 
The most Direct and Cheapest Route between New York, via 
Albany, Springfield or New London, Boston via Lowell, Fitchburg 
or Lawrence, to 
Montreal, Quebec, Detroit, Chicago, "West, White and 
G-reen Mountains. 
PULLMAN, PALACE, DRAWING ROOM AND SLEEPING CARS. 
417 Broadway, N. Y. 222 Washington Street, Boston. 
136 St. James Street, Montreal. 
G. W. BENTLEY, Gen. Manager. J. W. HOBART, Gen. Supt, 
S. W. CUMMINGS, Gen. Passenger Agent. 
ST. ALBANS, VERMONT. 
THE MONTREAL AND BOSTON AIR LINE, 
Comprising the Boston, Concord and Montreal Railroad (Concord, IST. IT., to Wells River, Vt.); 
Passumpsic Railroad ( Wells River, Vt., to Newport, Vt.); South Eastern Railway (New- 
port, Vt., to St. Lambert, P. Q.); 
Forms the Most Direct and Great Scenery Route between 
BOSTORST MONTREAL, 
Passing Lake Winncpesaukee and Lake Memphremagog. 
TWO FAST EXPRESS TRAINS EQUIPPED IN THE MOST ELEGANT STYLE, WITH PARLOR 
AND SLEEPING CARS ATTACHED, 
Run through without change, daily (Sundays excepted). 
AGENCIES: 
BOSTON: 240 Washington St.; W. Raymond, Agent. N. YORK: 271 Broadway; LEVE Sc AT.DEN, Ag'ts. 
MONTREAL: 202 St. .lames St.; 11. P. Ar.UEN, Ag’t. 
QUEBEC: Opp. St. Lop isHotel; Shipman & Lf.ve, Agents. 
N. P. COVERING, Jr., Cen’l Ticket Ag’t. H. E. FOLSOM, Superintendent. 
LYNDONVILLE, VT. 
FITCHBURG RAILROAD. 
HOOSAC TUNNEL ROUTE. 
The Hoosac Tunnel Route -which is composed of the Fitchburg, Troy & 
Greenfield, and Troy & Boston Railroads, forms, in- connection with the New jork 
Central & Hudson River Railroad, and Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.’s Railroad, the shortest 
and most direct route between Boston, Saratoga, Troy, Schenectady and the West; also in 
connection with the Worcester Sc Nashua, Nashua & Rochester, Portland Sc Rochester and 
Maine Central Raliroads, via Ayer Junction, it forms the shortest route between Portland, 
Augusta, Bangor and the West. 
■BQT DRAWING ROOM OR SLEEPING CARS ON ALL THROUGH 
TRAINS. 
General Office No. 250 Washington St., Boston. 
WM. B. STEARNS, President. C. L. HARTWELL, Gen. Freight Agent. 
JOHN ADAMS, Gen. Superintendent. O. C. DAGGKTT, Gen. Ticket Agent. 
E. Iv. TURNER, Assistant Superintendent.