State v. Lambert

• Decision Date: 06 December 1902
• Citation: 97 Me. 51,53 A. 879
• Parties: STATE v. LAMBERT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

53 A. 879

97 Me. 51

STATE

v. LAMBERT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 6, 1902.

(Official.)

Appeal from supreme judicial court, Piscataquis county.

Henry Lambert was convicted of murder, and appeals. Appeal denied, and judgment on the verdict.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, SAVAGE, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

Henry Hudson, for appellant.

Geo. M. Seiders, Atty. Gen., and M. L. Durgin, Co. Atty., for the State.

SAVAGE J. The evidence is plenary, and it is not now controverted that in the evening or night of Sunday, May 12, 1901, J. Wesley Allen, of Shirley, his wife, and their daughter, Carrie were murdered, and that the farm buildings of Allen in Shirley—house, ell, shed, and barn—were burned, to destroy the evidences of the crime. The defendant was indicted for the murder of J. Wesley Allen. As the result of a lengthy trial, in which all of his rights seem to have been carefully protected by the presiding justice, he was convicted of murder in the first degree. His motion to set aside the verdict was overruled, and he has appealed from that decision to this court. No exceptions have been reserved, and the single question presented for our consideration is whether, in view of all the testimony in the case, the jury were warranted in believing beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore in finding, that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged against him. We have examined the voluminous record with great care and solicitude. The evidence relied upon by the state to support the conviction is almost wholly circumstantial, and as to the existence of many of the circumstances relied upon there is a sharp conflict of testimony. We may say at the outset that in considering the weight of this testimony, depending, as it does, for its effect upon the credibility of the witnesses, we cannot put ourselves in the place of the jury, nor usurp that province of deciding questions of fact which the law imposed upon them. Their conclusions, if warranted by the evidence, are to stand. We have before us only the pages of a printed record, aided somewhat by an inspection of the exhibits which were introduced in evidence at the trial. The jury had before them the living, speaking witnesses. The degree of credence properly to be given to the story of a witness may depend much upon his appearance upon the stand, upon his air of candor and truthfulness, upon his seeming intelligence and honesty, upon his apparent want of bias or interest or prejudice. The want of such characteristics may render testimony of little value. And the appearance of such characteristics, or the want of them, is not always transcribed upon the record of a case. If the story of a witness is seemingly credible and probable, and not inconsistent with other admitted or proven facts, the listener has much better opportunity to judge correctly of its truthfulness than a reader has. Prom the bare record we might be in grave doubt as to which of two conflicting statements is true. The jury, seeing the witnesses, might have no reasonable doubt. And it follows that in cases like the one under consideration, as in all others, the jury must be the final arbiters of questions of fact, when the evidence in support of their conclusions, considered in connection with all the other evidence, is of such a character, such a quality, and such weight as to warrant them in believing it. We shall endeavor to apply these principles in our consideration of this case.

The state claims that the defendant, who had spent all day Saturday, May 11th, and the greater part of Sunday, May 12th, at West Cove, in Greenville, left West Cove Sunday afternoon about 4 o'clock; that he had on his feet a pair of new rubbers, No. 6 1/2, Bay State, which he had purchased the previous Friday evening, and in his hand an umbrella, which he used as a cane; and that he had in his pocket a quart bottle nearly or quite full of whisky. The state further claims that he proceeded southward by the track of the Bangor & Aroostook Railroad to the "Bully Road," so called. The Bully road is an old, unused logging road or path leading across from the railroad to the Shirley Mills road, and the latter road leads to the main traveled road from Greenville to Blanchard, called the "Lake Road." The Bully road proceeds for the most part through a woody growth on either hand. It is claimed that he walked through the Bully road to the Shirley Mills road, along the Shirley Mills road towards the Lake road, and then down the Lake road to a point about a mile and a half north of the Allen place, where he left the Lake road, and walked along another old unused logging road, called the "Spencer Road," to the immediate vicinity of the Allen house; and that he went to a small wooden structure, situated 34 rods from the Allen place, which he had formerly owned, but which he had recently sold, with its contents, to one Elmer Huff, with the privilege of occupying it from time to time by first obtaining the key from Huff, That structure was called "Lambert's Camp." The state claims that the defendant, while in the camp, left the umbrella with which he started, and what remained of a box of "blazer" or "safety" matches which he had purchased In West Cove that day. It is further claimed that he then went to the Allen buildings, murdered Allen and his wife and daughter, and fired the buildings; that he walked back to the house of Telos Smith, which is situated on the Lake road, somewhat northerly of the Shirley Mills road; that he arrived there some time during the night; that when he arrived the bottoms of his trousers' legs and his stockings were muddy; that he had the appearance of having walked very fast; and that some of the whisky was gone from the bottle. The distance from West Cove to the Allen place, by the route which it is claimed that the defendant walked, is a little more than 9 2/3 miles, and from the Allen place back to Telos Smith's house 3 miles. It seems to be satisfactorily proved that the fire at the Allen place occurred, or was first observable, between the hours of 9 and 10 that night, probably nearer 9 than 10. Upon the theory of the state it is evident that the distance from West Cove to Allen's did not preclude opportunity.

The state contends that the motive for the crime, or, to speak more exactly, the motive which led the defendant to the Allen house on the night in question, was not ill will, for none has been shown, nor robbery or burglary, for there is no evidence of any theft, but that it was lust for Carrie Allen, who, though only a little more than 14 years old, was a large and fleshy girl. It is claimed that on previous occasions he had expressed lascivious desires concerning this girl, his expressions looking even to the putting of "the old folks out of the way," if necessary. The state's theory is that he accomplished his purpose by violence, and that he took Allen's life either beforehand, to prevent interference with the intended rape, or afterwards in some altercation which resulted from it. In support of this contention the state relies much upon the fact that when the defendant's trunk was searched after his arrest the white shirt which he admittedly wore that Sunday night was found, and, when found, a rectangular piece seven or eight inches across had been cut out of the lower end of the front flap. The defendant however, says that he cut the piece out of the shirt at another place, and for another purpose, to be noted hereafter, and says that he left the piece somewhere about his room at Telos Smith's. This piece, though searched for, was never discovered. One witness testified that on the day succeeding the fire, at the premises, the defendant told him that "he [the defendant] came pretty near being in the house"; "that he started for Allen's place" when he left Greenville. The evidence indicates that the fatal wounds were inflicted upon Allen about 25 feet from his barn, where two large blood spots were found upon the ground, and that the body was then removed, but not dragged, to within the barn, where his remains were afterwards found in the ruins.

The defendant's version of his whereabouts on that Sunday evening is substantially as follows: He says he left West Cove between 5 and 6 o'clock, nearer 6 than 5, and that he had no rubbers on, nor umbrella with Wm. He says that he left the rubbers which he bought Friday night in the office of the Bartley House, at West Cove, Saturday morning, together with an umbrella, which he had borrowed from Telos Smith Friday night; and that he never used nor saw either the rubbers or the umbrella afterwards. He denies that he purchased any "blazer" matches at West Cove that day, or that he had ever used or had the possession of any such matches. He claims that he had on his feet only his stockings and a pair of thin, low shoes, with patent leather toes and patent leather up the front. He says that he walked from West Cove by the track of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Lake road at King's crossing, a mile and two-thirds, then down the road a little over two miles to a point near the house of Charles Roberts, where there was a spring six or eight rods from the road; that he reached that point about 7 o'clock; that he went to the spring, and drank from it; and that the spring was an open one, with the water bubbling up. He says that his left foot hurt him in consequence of his boots being tight; that he took off his shoe and stocking, and bathed his foot, which was sore and blistered; that he cut the missing piece out of the front flap of his shirt with his knife, and used it to wrap between his toes, so as to make walking less uncomfortable; that he then put on his stocking and shoe over the piece of cloth, and walked southerly through a pine growth 45 or 50 rods, until he came to the Lake road again, traveling about 10 rods from the road; that he walked down the road to the Mansell line, and then crossed the...