Harry D. Williams was committed for trial before the York County Court opening on January 20th, by Judge Limerick at noon today on the conclusion of his preliminary examination on the charge of murdering fourteen-years-old Cynthia Foster and her ten-years-old sister, Necia. Evidence of the eighteen witnesses summoned by the Crown was taken.

    Williams had nothing to say on his own behalf nor did he want to summon any witnesses following the completion of the evidence submitted by P.J. Hughes, K.C., as Crown prosecutor. Immediately after the completion of the evidence of Dr. B.H. Dougan, of Harvey Station, the last witness, Mr. Hughes moved for committal of the prisoner for trial.

    Williams was directed to stand up and to listen carefully while Judge Limerick asked him if he had anything he wished to say for himself. He was warned that he did not have to say anything, and that anything he might say would be taken down in writing and used against him at his trial. After acknowledging that he understood the question he shook his head and said "No sir" in reply to the court's query. He replied in the same manner when asked if he wished to call any witnesses.

    The evidence given yesterday by Claude Peck that Williams had admitted the murders to him in the presence of Enoch Peck, after having been duly warned and acknowledging the warning, was corroborated by Enoch Peck in his evidence this morning. "I know it," Williams said in answer to Claude Peck's warning, according to Enoch Peck. "I killed the girls and expect to pay the supreme penalty." He was looking forward from the rear of the automobile at the time and then turning to Claude Peck, added: "But I didn't do what you think I did." He added that they would find his statements true with the assistance of expert advice.

    Williams also told the witness that he was not jealous, and that he didn't know what was the matter with him. He said Williams had said he tried to poison himself with the strychnine but had taken an overdose and vomited it up.

    Mrs. Rachael Wood, of Fosterville, one of the women assisting in preparing the bodies of the victims for burial, was the first witness called by P.J. Hughes, K.C., Crown prosecutor, when the preliminary hearing was resumed at 10:25 o'clock this morning. She did not make any examination or find any marks on the bodies other than those previously described.

    Mrs. Lenora Boone, of North Lake, said she had seen both of the girls on the last night in October. She had gone to the cabin to assist in the burial preparations. She did not see what became of the clothing removed from the bodies nor did she see anything removed from the cabin or burned. She did not know of any new facts.

    Wesley Buckingham, of Fosterville, farmer, said he had known the prisoner for eight or ten years. The prisoner had lived with Ward Foster and at his (Williams) camp since the war. Witness said he lived forty rods from Ward Foster's. Buckingham said said he saw Williams with the black and white dog going towards Ward Foster's barn at noon on the day of the murder. He recognized the dog as the one Williams had. Witness was going for his dinner at the time he saw Williams and the dog near Foster's barn.

    Witness visited the cabin the morning after the murder. He described the general situation as he had viewed it on this occasion. His evidence in this respect corroborated that already given by previous witnesses.

    He also acted as a witness of Dr. Turner's medical examination and described the condition of the bodies. Witness said he did not know for what purpose cord such as was used in binding the girls was made. Later the following day, he had visited the camp and found similar cords on a shelf with fish hooks attached. These cords were not the ones discovered on the floor by Warden A.C. Wetmore. He had left the hooked cords where he had discovered them.

    Robert Hay, of Canterbury, was called for the purpose of identifying the sand-bag produced in evidence. He said he had seen it taken from a shelf in the cabin. It was turned over to the officers.

    The next witness was Enoch Peck, of North Lake, who said that he was told of the murder at 5:15 a.m. on November 26th. He went to the camp and after awhile heard a rumor that Williams was crossing the road. With Claude Peck, Millidge Wood and Emory Farrell he went down the road in a car and found Williams on the road near Harvey Boone's. Emory Farrell stopped the car and Williams said: "Don't hurt me, I'm going to give myself up." Claude Peck said: "Get in the car."

    After their arrival at John Foster's he had conversed with Williams but he had not warned him. He stayed with the prisoner until Deputy Sheriff Fraser Saunders arrived. As a result of a conversation with Williams he had gone to Tom Kinney's field where he found the rifle produced in court. He found it without difficulty at the point where the wire fence and the pole fence met, which is where Williams said it was.

    There were footprints of a working-man's shoes about the spot and in one place the grass had been trodden down over a an area three feet from side to side. He showed the rifle to Williams who said something to him, but this conversation was ruled out by the Court. Continuing the witness said the rifle was left in John Foster's office during the day. He saw Claude Peck bring the rifle out of the office after Deputy Sheriff Saunders arrived. The rifle had been marked with two notches by Claude Peck.

    During the day at Foster's, Williams vomited a little. He had given an explanation as to the cause of his sickness to the witness. The conversation in this respect was also ruled out by the Court. The prisoner had been cold when taken to Foster's.

    Witness said he accompanied the Deputy Sheriff and the prisoner in the automobile to Ward Foster's, where he and Claude Peck had been left with Williams in the automobile while the others visited the Williams' camp.

Witness said he heard Claude Peck warn the prisoner that he didn't have to answer his questions and that anything he said would be brought out against him in the courts. This took place in the car before the conversation which he had with the prisoner in the absence of Deputy Sheriff Saunders at the camp.

    In reply to the warning given by Claude Peck, the witness said Williams replied: "I know it. I killed the girls and I expect to pay the supreme penalty." While he said this Williams was looking to the front of the car. Then he turned his head and said to Claude Peck: "but I didn't do what you think I did."

    Continuing, Enoch Peck said Claude Peck had said that they would have expert advice on that.

    Williams replied: "Well, you can have expert advice on it and you'll find what I'm telling you is true."

    Witness asked Williams if he had been jealous.

    Williams replied "no," and that he didn't know what was the matter.

    Witness asked him if he had taken strychnine and he replied that he had and that he had taken too much and vomited it up. He had gone up to the field where the rifle had been found about dusk and said he stayed there all night.

    Williams also said: "The chances are I'll plead guilty." Claude Peck replied that he might as well and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

The Daily Gleaner, Wednesday, December 17, 1924

    The evidence of ten witnesses had been completed when the preliminary examination Harry D. Williams, charged with the murder of his half-sister's two daughters, Cynthia, aged 14, and Necia, aged 10, at Fosterville, on November 25th, was adjourned last evening to resume again this morning at 10 o'clock.

    Little new evidence was produced at yesterday afternoon's hearing when the witnesses gave evidence largely of a corroborative evidence. Warden A.C. Wetmore and Arlington Boone, two of the witnesses of the medical examination made by Dr. W.L. Turner, John Foster, J.P., Dr. Turner, Mrs. Ida Farrell, and Mrs. Nellie Farrell, two of the women present while the bodies were prepared for burial, were the witnesses examined yesterday afternoon.

    Warden Wetmore told of finding two other cords in Williams' cabin, similar to those used in binding the arms of the victims, and which appeared to have been newly cut, in addition to a sand-bag which he had found on a shelf over the table. The sand-bag had been in perfect condition when he found it but had been torn when two boys had attempted to test its strength. Dr. Turner in his evidence said that an examination of the body of Cynthia Foster had revealed evidence to him which led him to the conclusion that she had been violated. Arlington Boone said he had burned the pillows found on the bed under Cynthia's head and through which one of the bullets had passed and had discovered one of the bullets under the bed while cleaning up the cabin after the examination by Dr. Turner. John Foster told of the prisoner being held in custody at his home and Mrs. Nellie Farrell admitted burning a quantity of clothing while the bodies were being prepared for burial. What the articles were which she had burned, she could not say.

    Warden A.C. Wetmore, of Fosterville, resumed the stand at 2:40 p.m. and continued his evidence with respect to various ropes and cords submitted in evidence. A bullet crease had been discovered in the flooring beneath the head of the younger girl starting directly from the position occupied by the head which had been penetrated by a bullet. On the floor had been found a piece of the bullet casing , a second piece being discovered in the log wall back of the bed.

    The rag covering the face of the older girl on the bed had been knotted about the head and was pierced by a bullet hole directly over the wound in the head. A gag was found tied into the girl's mouth. The bullet which passed through the older girl's head passed through the pillow and mattress and was discovered embedded with the filling of the mattress and pillow in the wall of the cabin. The bullet in evidence was produced and identified.

    The older girl's skirt had been pulled part way to her knees. Beneath, two underskirts had been rolled up to her waist. The girl's under-garments was blood-stained on both thighs. A further examination of her body had been made by Dr. Turner who later gave permission for burial.

    Beside a wash boiler containing bread and cake Warden Wetmore said he discovered two additional cords approximately two and a half feet long, similar to the smaller cords found on the bodies. These two cords appeared to have been freshly cut. They were lying on the floor at the end of the bed.

    The witness then volunteered the statement that he had discovered the sand-bag submitted as an exhibit. He had found it on a shelf over the table and it had been in an undamaged condition when he discovered it before the arrival of the coroner. The break in the cloth had been made later by accident.

    Dr. Walter L. Turner, of Meductic, the next witness, said he was a coroner of York county but he never held an inquest. The first thing he did on reaching there on November 26th was to attend Mrs. Ward B. Foster, whom he found in a critical condition and also suffering from shock. He then proceeded to Williams' camp. Asked to tell what he had done, he replied: "I can't tell you any better than it has been told. I might answer your questions." He continued, in answer to questions, to detail the condition of the cabin and the two bodies, as stated in his statement published at the time in The Gleaner.

    The condition of the bound arms of the younger girl, he said, would lead him to believe the cords had been tied some time previous to death, a half an hour more or less. Rigor mortis was well marked and it was impossible to form an opinion how long since death had occurred. He had attempted to bend several of the joints and had found it almost impossible. Rigor mortis, he said, would be marked two or three hours after death, and more so after a longer period.

    The gag in the older girl's mouth would effectively prevent any outcry. It consisted of a seamless bag rolled and tied into the mouth around the head. A hole in the bandage about the head corresponded with the entrance of the bullet which passed through the head.

    The girl's under-garments had been rolled up, covered by her outer skirt. The clothing had not been carefully rolled. Blood was found in profusion on the girl's underwear. This, however, had no connection with the blood from the head wounds. It showed evidence to him, as a medical man, he said, that the girl had been violated.

Arlington Boone, farmer, of North Lake, said he visited the camp on November 26th with a number of others. His evidence corroborated that already given with respect to the condition and examination of the bodies, he having been one of the witnesses summoned for the examination made by Dr. Turner.

The witness said he destroyed the two pillows which had been under Cynthia's head. He threw them on a fire in the yard. He also saw Mrs. Emery Farrell throw some clothing on the fire, but nothing had been moved before Dr. Turner arrived to change the situation. After Dr. Turner left he assisted in cleaning up the cabin and placing the two bodies on the bed for the women who had been summoned to prepare them for burial. While sweeping up some magazines and dust after moving the bed he discovered one of the bullets submitted in evidence at this juncture as Exhibit No. 13.

    John L. Foster, J.P., of Fosterville, a blacksmith and wheelwright, said he heard of the murder between 10 and 11 o'clock the night of the tragedy and summoned his two sons who went out. The prisoner had been brought to his house the next morning where he directed him to be searched. The prisoner remained in his kitchen in charge of the Peck brothers until Deputy Sheriff Fraser Saunders arrived and took charge of him. The witness said he had not warned the prisoner in fact he did not talk to the prisoner about the crime at all.

    Mrs. Ida E. Farrell, of Fosterville, wife of Stephen Farrell, a life-long neighbor of the Foster family, was the next witness. She had seen them on November 25th and talked with Cynthia and Necia Foster after they came from school. She assisted in preparing the bodies for burial on the following afternoon and had discovered a red mark below the knee on one of the legs of Cynthia Foster, a black and blue mark on one of the hips and a mark corresponding to that which might be made by a hand on the right knee.

    Dr. Turner, recalled, said he did not recollect having seen this mark. He did not believe this mark could have been left as a result of the medical examination.

    Mrs. Nellie Farrell followed. She was present while the bodies were prepared for burial but she did not assist in preparing the bodies for burial. She picked up some clothing from the floor and carried it out and threw it on the fire. She did not know whether it was the girls' clothing or bed clothing she burned. She couldn't describe the articles she burned.

    The witness was informed by Judge Limerick that no blame could be attached to her action in destroying the clothing. He had been informed by someone that someone who had burned the clothing feared they would get in trouble over it.He did not wish to cast any reflection on the witness but urged her to tell what she knew if she could. Witness replied that she did not know.

    The court then adjourned for the day.

NOTE:—The Daily Gleaner for December 16th, is not available on micro-fische. However, it appears the events of the first day of the preliminary hearing were recorded in the December 17th issue, as appears below.

    While the December 17th issue is somewhat confusing in lay-out with seemingly unconnected columns, careful scrutiny has pieced together the evidence of the witnesses, and is copied here just as it was written in 1924. Why the evidence given by Ward Foster and his oldest daughter, Irma, (actually known life-long as Hilda) is not reported in the paper is unknown. Posssibly missed by me; but likely due to the confused lay-out. Their evidence was reported by The Gleaner during the trial which is recorded here further on.

Nor did I see any copy on the outcome of the preliminary hearing nor whether any defence was offered. However, we do know Williams was bound over for trial at the next sitting of the Court of King's Bench.

The Daily Gleaner Tuesday, January 20, 1925

    Headed by Coun. Arthur C. Wetmore, Warden of York County, and with grim determination written all over their faces, a party of fourteen residents of the parish of North Lake reached Fredericton this afternoon.

    They came as witnesses summoned by the Crown in the most revolting criminal case in the annals of York county, and will appear tomorrow morning when the preliminary examination of Harry D. Williams on the charge of murder of Cynthia Foster and Necia Foster, aged 14 and 10 years, commences before Police Magistrate Walter Limerick.

    Included in the party were Ward Foster, the father, and Irma Foster, the oldest sister of the two girls who met such brutal deaths on the evening of November 25th in the little shack where Williams lived a hermit-like existence on the shore of the head of the chain of Chiputneticook Lakes. The father and the girl both gave evidence of their continued grief, as they stepped from the train at the C.P.R. station and started for the hotel where they are staying while in the city.

    "No, his mother is not here and she says she does not want to see him," one of the men from North Lake said when asked if Williams' mother was coming to see him. "His mother feels the same as we all do," he continued, "that he is guilty of an awful crime with which he is charged and that the sooner he he is hanged and pays the penalty insofar as he can the better it will be."

    At the York County Jail this afternoon it was said that Williams has had no caller except the clergyman who he asked for, since he occupied a cell there. Nor has he made any move towards securing legal counsel for his preliminary examination and trial. In fact it was said today that the prisoner has not sufficient money to buy himself a changed of clothes and that public funds will have to be provided to do that.

The Daily Gleaner Wednesday, January 20, 1925

    True bills were returned early this afternoon by the grand jury in the Supreme Court against Harry D. Williams on two separate indictments, charging him with the murder of his two half-nieces, Cynthia Foster, aged 14, and Necia Foster, aged 10, daughters of Mr. and Mrs. Ward B. Foster, at Fosterville, York county, on November 25th, 1924.

T    he prisoner was not in court during the morning's proceedings, nor when the grand jury submitted its findings through its foreman, Councillor William C. Whipple, of McAdam in the York County Municipal Council. Three witnesses were examined by the grand jury during the hour and twenty minutes they had the indictments under consideration, the witnesses being: Ward B. Foster, father of the murdered girls; Dr. W.L. Turner, of Meductic, who made the medical examination, and Claud (sic) Peck, of Fosterville, one of the party who took Williams into custody. The grand jury returned shortly after 1 o'clock with their findings.

    One absentee was reported when the grand jury was summoned, George L. Embleton, of Harvey Station, failing to respond in answer to his name. Sheriff J. B. Hawthorn was sworn proof of notice was made and a fine of $10 was imposed by Mr. Justice LeBlanc. James H. Clark, of Benton, whose name appeared in the grand jury list, was also absent, but was stated by Sheriff Hawthorn that he had not been served.

    Two indictments were submitted to the grand jury by Mr. Justice LeBlanc, the double murder charges being separated on the indictments charging that Harry D. Williams did murder Cynthia Foster and Necia Foster at Fosterville on November 25th. Presenting the indictments to the grand jury for their consideration, Mr Justice LeBlanc stated that the evidence in one case would apply also to the second case, and then proceeded to outline the circumstances as presented through the evidence given at the preliminary hearing before Judge Walter Limerick in the police court at Fredericton on December 16th and 17th. These matters are very serious ones, and the court charged the members of the grand jury to give them their careful consideration.

    Coming to the point where Williams had been arrested and hand made incriminating statements, Mr. Justice LeBlanc said he would not dwell on these statements or their admissibility as evidence. He wished to be fair to the prinoner and these statements were not necessary at the present time for the purposes of the Grand Jury in finding a true bill.

    Particular attention was paid by Mr. Justice LeBlanc to the evidence of criminal assault as found by the doctors making the medical examination. He especially pointed out that here could be no possibility, in view of the evidence of the blood from the wounds found in Cynthia Foster's head, having soaked through her outer clothing to stain her underclothing which had been found saturated with blood from the knees almost to the waist.

    Mr. Justice LeBlanc then pointed out that it was not necessary for the Grand Jury to hear all the witnesses, but only to hear sufficient evidence for the purpose of bringing in a true bill, except in case of extreme or rare doubt. He said he wished to impress, and did vigorously impress upon the Grand Jurymen that they were not trying the accused, that it was not the function of the Grand Jury to try the prisoner. Their duty consisted of finding sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation by the petit jury on a true bill. His Honor said he hoped he had made himself plain, even if he had spoken more plainly than usual, for he did not wish to be responsible should there be any miscarriage of justice. Instructions as the the endorsements of the indictments were then given to the foreman and it was pointed out that seven jurymen must agree to bring in a true bill or no bill.

    The charge to the Grand Jury was concluded at 11:45 a.m., having consumed over half an hour, the Grand Jury retiring to the jury-room immediately afterwards in charge of Constable Charles Sterling.

    The following are the names of the jurymen summoned for duty in connection with the nisi prius sittings:

Grand Jury—J.W. Walker, Marysville; Robert Stephenson, City; Roy Flowers, South Devon; Roy Yerxa, Mouth of Keswick; James C. Forbes, Covered Bridge; Geo. R. Embleton, Harvey Station; J.A. Stafford, Marysville; Herbert Gunter, City; R. Clive VanWart, City; James H. Clark, Benton; Clarence Billings, Lower Hainsville; Walter Piercy, Harvey Station. Additional—John B. Hood, City; W.C. Whipple, McAdam Junction; Tilley Bird, Keswick; Harry Pickard, Burtt's Corner; Howard D. Burtt, Burtt's Corner; and Sterling Limerick, City.

Petit Jury—John A. Reid, City; Byron Evans, Nashwaaksis; William Jones, Lower Hainesville; Robert T. Baird, City; Chester Morrison, Lower Southampton; Frank Coburn, Harvey Station; George Lawrence, Burtt's Corner; Harvey Brown, Marysville; Horace Draper, Pinder; William D. Gunter, City; William Hagerman, Burtt's Corner; Bert Goodspeed, Penniac; Eben Staples, City; Luke Morrison, City; David Embleton, Nashwaaksis; John N. Inch, Burtt's Corner.

Additional — Arthur Bennet, Cross Creek; John Fove, Hanwell; Albert Smith, Prince William; George Camp, City; George Boulter, Stanley; George Ward, South Devon; Burpee McKeen, Mouth of Keswick; Irvine Haines, Burtt's Corner; James O. Tomlison, Stanley; Allen Crow, Pinder; Randolph Maby, Burtt's Corner; Clowes Patterson, City; Joseph A. Cain, City; Angus McBean, Taymouth; Ralph Kilburn, Kingsclear; William J. Brewer, Fredericton, RR #7; John Brawn, Lower Hainsville; Norman P. Lawrence, Prince William; John Myshrall, Myshrall Settlement; Frank Thomas, City; Samuel Davidson, Prince William.

    Fred H. Peters, former Clerk of the Peace for York County, was appointed yesterday afternoon by Mr. Justice LeBlanc as counsel for Harry D. Williams and accepted by the accused. Williams had stated in reply to a question by the Court as to whether he wished counsel to be appointed by the Court for his defence on the charge of murdering his two half-nieces at Fosterville: "I don't know as it matters — I plead guilty."

    This reply, given in a quiet well-modulated voice and without the slightest trace of emotion, electrified the packed court-room when he Court resumed yesterday afternoon at 2:30 o'clock.

    Immediately after the Court had resumed, Williams who had been placed in the prisoner's dock was directed to stand up. He did so and was then asked if he had counsel to defend him. His reply was: "No." Asked if he had the means to procure counsel, he also replied: "No." It was then that his quiet announcement of his intention electrified the spectators when he was asked if he desired the Court to appoint counsel for his defence.

    Williams was immediately reminded by Mr. Justice LeBlanc that he was not being asked to plead, and the question as to whether he wanted counsel being put once more he replied in the affirmative.

    No Lawyers were present in the court-room at the time from whom Mr. Justice LeBlanc might select one to defend the prisoner. In fact there was a remarkable dearth of counsel at both the morning and afternoon proceedings; so much so that there were no civil cases filed for the opening of the Courts is usual. Sheriff Hawthorn was requested to communicate with a number of lawyers, the Court pointing out that the accused had the right to have as able legal talent for his defence as the Bar could supply. An effort was made to reach J.J.F. Winslow, K.C., but the Sheriff reported that he was also out of the city as were others whom he had attempted to reach. Mr. Peters was then suggested and he was obtained after a short delay.Meanwhile, the list of petit jurors was called and, with the exception of Byron Evans, of Nashwaaksis, all responded to their names.

    Following the arrival of Mr. Peters, Mr. Justice LeBlanc stated to him that two indictments of murder had been returned against the accused, and asked him if he would undertake his defence. Mr. Peters replied that with such short notice, if he undertook the defence, he would require an adjournment for the purpose of interviewing the prisoner. He would also want a copy of the depositions which the prisoner was unable to supply owing to lack of funds and leave to interview the prisoner.

    Mr. Justice LeBlanc consented and suggested that an adjournment be made until 5 p.m., when the case would go on. Mr. Peters said he did not feel this would leave him sufficient time and suggested that after he had interviewed the prisoner he might have some application to make before the Court. The selection of the Jury would also take some time. Mr. Justice LeBlanc then stated that when the Court adjourned it would adjourn until 10 o'clock this morning and asked the prisoner if he accepted Mr. Peters as his counsel. Williams replied in the affirmative. The Court was then adjourned.

    When yesterday afternoon's session opened Williams made his first public appearance since he was committed for trial on December 17th. Freshly shaven and with his hair cut. he presented a much improved picture than that of his haggard appearance at the preliminary examination. He wore his mackinaw coat over his blue suit and for the first time his apparel was completed with a soft white collar with a bow tie.

    Throughout the proceedings he maintained a stolid calm, seemingly unaware that he was the cynosure of hundreds of pairs of eyes. Once or twice he turned his head and smiled and nodded faintly to acquaintances in the crowd which swarmed about the dock following adjournment of the Court. While waiting for the court-room to empty of the curious throng prior to his removal to the county jail, Williams pulled out cigarette papers and tobacco and proceeded leisurely to roll a cigarette. He was taken from the court-room manacled to Deputy Sheriff Fraser Saunders, the two men threading their way through the dense thronged hallway.

    There was a small number of women present yesterday afternoon in addition to those included among the witnesses from Fosterville. Two women and a young girl who were making their way through the court at 2:30 p.m. were heard to remark: "I'd laugh if it was behind closed doors and we couldn't get in. Now I wonder what door you go in?" "It's upstairs," said the second, and a few minutes later, "Oh, it's packed," and broke into a run to obtain standing room amongst the throng.

The Daily Gleaner Thursday, January 22, 1925

    First steps toward a plea of insanity to save Harry D. Williams from the gallows were taken this morning by Fred H. Peters, who yesterday afternoon was named as his counsel, after the accused had startled the throng of people who filled the York Circuit Court by unconcernedly telling Mr. Justice LeBlanc that he was going to plead guilty to the charge of having murdered his half sister's two daughters, Cynthia and Necia Foster, aged 14 and 10 years, at Fosterville, on November 25th last in one of the most revolting crimes in the annals of New Brunswick.

    With his request for an adjournment of one day in order to prepare his case disallowed Mr. Peters commenced sparring for time by entering so many objections to the selection of jurors that by 1 o'clock when the court adjourned only two jurors had been selected. Mr. Peters is awaiting the return from St. John of Very Rev. Dean Neales, who has been Williams' spiritual adviser, and who soon after he first saw Williams at the York 

    County jail expressed the opinion in an interview the The Gleaner that the prisoner was not sane. Meanwhile, Williams had entered formal pleas of not guilty to two indictments, but when asked by the Court whether he was ready to have his trial proceed Williams had replied: "I don't know."

    Ex-Coun. John N. Inch, of Burtt's Corner, and Normal L. Lawrence, of Dumfries, with the two jurymen selected and sworn this morning. Twelve members of the petit jury panel had been called and challenged for cause by Mr. Peters. Of the eight who were tried as to their indifference only one, James O. Tomlison, was rejected by the triers as being not indifferent. Five were peremptorily challenged by Mr. Peters after being found indifferent by the triers.

    When the court opened this morning Dr. T. Carleton Allen, Deputy Attorney General was present with P.J. Hughes, K.C., Crown Prosecutor. He left shortly after the proceedings had commenced. Dr. J.V. Anglin, of St. John, Superintendent of the Provincial Hospital for nervous diseases, who arrived in the city this morning, was also present and it was said that he might appear as a crown witness.

    The greater portion of the morning was devoted to the examination of the members of the jury panel as to their indifference to the issue of the trial. All who were examined admitted that they had read press accounts of the murder in the Gleaner while some had read other accounts of the tragedy.

    At the opening of this morning's proceedings Mr. Peters stated that he had during the brief opportunity afforded him made a preliminary investigation of the past life and demeanor of the accused following his arrest. He had learned that Very Rev. Dean Neales, who had been attending the prisoner at the jail, was absent from the city in St. John and would not return to the city, owing to an engagements, until this evening. From replies which had been furnished to him after he had located Dean Neales in St. John, Mr. Peters stated that he believed he could furnish him with some most valuable information in the interests of the prisoner relating to his physical and mental condition since his arrest. In view of this Mr. Peters requested that a further adjournment be made to allow him to obtain this information, and suggested that an adjournment for a day would help him to some extent.

    Crown Prosecutor Hughes in reply contended that Mr. Peters had not placed anything before the Court to justify a further adjournment. The Crown's case would occupy two or three days and Mr. Peters would be at liberty during the course of the trial to have the accused tried as regard to sanity. There were some twenty witnesses present at great personal inconvenience and expense in addition to a large number of jurymen. The prisoner had been in the city for some two months, and with Dean Neales as his constant attendant during that time he thought the necessary information could be easily obtained. While he did not wish to be in any way unfair to the prisoner, he could not see that any advantage would be taken of him if the case proceeded.

    Mr Justice LeBlanc pointed out that the accused could at any time during his trial be tried as to his sanity. The jury might be ordered to find whether he was fit to be placed upon trial.

    Mr. Peters said he wished to consult not only Dean Neales but some medical men before deciding upon a sanity trial. If the adjournment he had asked for was disallowed, he would ask for no further adjournment. He had only been with the prisoner himself for a half or three-quarters of an hour last evening. As a result of this interview he deemed it most necessary to inquire into his sanity. He could not see that the inconvenience of a few witnesses was to be considered as against the interests of the accused, who would be placed on trial for his life.

    Mr. Justice LeBlanc that stated that while the request was not an unreasonable one, the counsel had seen the prisoner, and his defence along sanity lines would not be barred at any time during the trial. He was going to do everything to be fair to the prisoner but did not feel under the circumstances that he would be justified in making an adjournment.

    Mr. Peters explained that he was not in a position to go on with the sanity issue.

    The Court replied that this could be taken up an any time during the trial; Mr. Hughes agreed with this.

    The indictments were then read to the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty to the separate charges. Asked if he was ready for trial, he replied: "I don't know."

    The judge then ordered the case to proceed and ordered the jury called. Selection of the Jurors

    The following jurymen being called, were all challenged for cause by Mr. Peters: 

    Joseph A. Cain, Fredericton; John N. Inch, Burtt's Corner; E.H. Clarkson, Fredericton; and George Lawrence, Burtt's Corner.

    James Tomlison, of Stanley, R.R. No. 1, and Norman P. Lawrence, of Prince William, R.R. No. 2, two of the summoned jurors were appointed triers by the Court. Mr. Cain was first examined. He said he had read the reports of the alleged crime as published in Fredericton and St. John newspapers. He had not expressed an opinion. The triers reported Mr. Cain as indifferent. Mr. Cain was then challenged peremptorily.

    Mr. Inch was examined and reported upon as being indifferent by the triers and sworn as a jury. The triers were discharged and Mr. Inch and Norman Lawrence appointed as triers in the case of George Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence was examined and reported as indifferent. Mr. Lawrence was then challenged peremptorily by Mr. Peters. Mr. Clarkson was examined by the same triers and reported as indifferent. Mr. Clarkson was then challenged peremptorily and Mr. Lawrence discharged as a trier.

    Following a recess requested by Mr. Peters the following jurors were then called: 

    James O. Tomilson, Stanley, R.R. No. 1; Normal L. Lawrence, Prince William, R.R. No. 2; Herbert Ritchie, Hawkshaw, R.R. No. 1; and Albert Smith, Prince William, R.R. No. 1. They were challenged for cause and Mr. Lawrence was re-appointed with Mr. Inch as triers the purpose of examining Mr. Tomilson. Mr. Tomilson, under examination, admitted that he had formed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused. The triers reported him as not indifferent and the challenge was allowed.

    Norman L. Lawrence was then examined before Mr. Inch and Robert Ritchie as triers. He said he had formed an opinion of the accused's guilt but not so strong as to be shaken by evidence favorable to the accused. He was reported as indifferent by the triers, and no further objection being made, was sworn as a member of the jury.

    Messrs. Inch and Lawrence, the two jurymen sworn asmembers of the petit jury were then appointed as triers for the purpose of examining Herbert Ritchie, who gave his residence as Temple. Mr. Ritchie was found to be indifferent but was challenged pre-emptorily

    Albert Smith was next examined by the same triers. He stated that he had formed an opinion from one side of the case. It was not so set or so formed, however, that he could not change it after hearing all the evidence. The triers reported him as indifferent but Mr. Smith was challenged pre-emptorily, however.

    The next four jurymen were then called as follows: David Embleton, Nashwaaksis; William Hagerman, Burtt's Corner; Frank Foster, Fredericton; and Arthur Bennett, Cross Creek.

    Deputy Sheriff Fraser Saunders was then sworn and placed in charge of the two jurymen, it being 1 o'clock and instructed to prevent them from having any conversation with anyone about the subject of the trial.

    Mrs. Ada Thornton, of Houlton, Me., divorced wife of Harry D. Williams, who was formerly known as Darius Thornton, may be a witness if her former husband's sanity is tried in the York Circuit Court, as it seemed certain today from developments in the Fosterville double murder. case.

    It is recalled that Mrs. Thornton, who lives in Houlton with Williams' son, stated in an interview soon after her former husband's arrest that the accused had some years ago been subject to "spells" and had "acted queerly"; and it is expected that medical evidence will be sought to prove that such a condition could be serious aggravated into fits of insanity by the three or more years of continuous war service which Williams served in the front line trenches as a member of the Trench Mortars of the Third Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in France and Belgium.

    In army life Williams was known as "Whistling Jim," according to City Marshall John H. McCollom, who was a Sergeant Major of a unit with which Williams spent some time.

    Ex-members of K Unit, D.D.C.R., say that Williams spent three months in Fredericton after his return from overseas in 1919 as an orderly of K Unit.

The Daily Gleaner Thursday, January 22, 1925

    Harry D. Williams could not remember last evening what he said in court yesterday afternoon when he electrified those present by stating that it didn't matter much whether the court assigned counsel for his defense as he was going to plead guilty, when interviewed last evening, according to his counsel, Fred H. Peters.

    Mr. Peters told The Gleaner today that Williams was unable to place P.J. Hughes, K.C., as Crown Prosecutor, although the latter had been sitting directly in front of him during the afternoon. Williams also failed to remember Mr. Hughes as the Crown Prosecutor who conducted the Crown's case at the preliminary examination before Judge Limerick in the Police Court on December 16th and 17th. At that time those present in the police court remember that Williams appeared to show some interest in Mr. Hughes as he submitted the Crown's evidence.

    Arrangements were being made today to have Williams examined by doctors with respect to his sanity. It is expected that Dr. Charles MacKay, of Fredericton, will be one of the examining physicians who will be procured by Mr. Peters to examine the prisoner, while efforts were also being made to secure the services of Dr. H.R. Moore, of Stanley. Dr. MacKay was present when Williams made his first appearance in police court here.
 
 

    Six hours were consumed in the York Circuit Court yesterday in the selection of the petit jury for the trial of Harry D. Williams on the charges of murdering his half-nieces, the jury being completed last evening at 5:45 p.m.

    Thirty-one of the forty-one jurors present in court were called and challenged for cause by Fred H. Peters, counsel for the defence. One was stood aside by the Crown Prosecutor. But two of the challenged jurors were rejected by the triers as not being indifferent to the issue before the court. Sixteen preemptory challenges were made by the counsel for the defence, fifteen of which were made after the jurors had been challenged for cause and found indifferent by the triers. In one case the challenge for cause was withdrawn and preemptory challenge substituted. Twenty preemptory challenges were allowed the defence counsel by law.

    When the court resumed yesterday afternoon two members of the petit jury had been selected and sworn and the selection of the jury was proceeded with, occupying the entire afternoon until 5:45 p.m. The Court then announced that recess would taken until 7:30 p.m., when P.J. Hughes would outline the Crown's case to the jury. Mr. Peters rose to object, but Mr. Justice LeBlanc said he would not change his decision. The court had sat then for two days and one day had been devoted to the selection of a jury and he was determined to commence hearing evidence today. Mr. Peters would not be barred from interviewing witnesses during the evening as the outline of the Crown's case would take but a half an hour.

    The first juryman called in the afternoon was David Embleton, of Nashwaaksis, who said he had read an account of the arrest and preliminary examination of Williams in The Gleaner and that he had expressed an opinion with respect to his guilt in his own home. His opinion and conviction was deeply rooted and pretty strong evidence would have to be offered to change his opinion. He was found to be indifferent by the triers but was challenged peremptorily by the defense counsel.

    William Hagerman, Merchant, of Burtt's Corner, said he had heard a portion of the evidence given at the preliminary examination. He had expressed a general opinion of the case but could not say that he had a deep conviction. He was found indifferent by the triers and sworn as a member of the petit jury.

    Norman L. Lawrence, of Dumfries, and Mr. Hagerman, two of the three members of the jury, were then sworn as triers to examine Frank Foster, Merchant, of Fredericton, who said he had expressed himself with respect to the case on several occasions and still held an opinion drawn from the evidence as reported in the newspapers. No matter what evidence might be produced to the contrary he did not think it would change his opinion. The Court expressed the opinion that the witness was not indifferent and this was concurred by the triers.

    Arthur Bennet, of Cross Creek, woodsman, was the next member of the panel examined. Mr. Hughes suggested that matters would be simplified if he were stood aside by the Crown but the Court remarked that there was some doubt if this could be done after he had already been challenged for cause.

    While the examination of Mr. Bennet was proceeding, Mr. Justice LeBlanc broke in to as if Mr. Peters were endeavouring to secure a jury of bachelors. If so, he would have some difficulty to securing twelve such. Mr. Peters had questioned Mr. Bennett as to his conjugal state. Mr. Bennett expressed his conviction of the accused's guilt. During the examination hilarity on the part of spectators drew a remark from the Bench to the effect that this was a murder trial and should be taken seriously.

    In reply to Mr. Justice LeBlanc, Mr. Bennett stated that was not so firmly set in his opinion that he could not sit on the jury and render the accused a fair trial. After some consultation, Mr. Bennett was found indifferent by the triers but was challenged peremptorily by Mr. Peters.

    The following jurors were then called and all challenged by Mr. Peters for cause: Luke Morrison, Frank Thomas and George Camp, of Fredericton, and George Ward of South Devon. Byron Evans, of Nashwaaksis, failed to respond to his name when called by T.H. Sharkey, Clerk of the Court.

    Luke Morrison, insurance agent, of Fredericton, said he had a strong conviction of the prisoner's guilt, but if strong enough evidence in the prisoner's favor were produced to alter the case he would changed his opinion. The triers reported Mr. Morrison as indifferent and he was sworn as a member of the jury.

    William Hagerman and Luke Morrison were then sworn as triers of Frank Thomas, of Fredericton. Mr. Thomas said he was quite convinced of the charges but not to such an extent as to prevent a change of mind and he was found to be indifferent. Mr. Peters entered a preemptory challenge.

    George Camp, of Fredericton, livery stable proprietor, said he had formed a strong conviction against the accused. Mr. Camp was found indifferent and sworn as the fifth member of the jury. Messrs. Morrison and Camp being sworn for the purpose of trying George Ward, of South Devon.

    Mr. Ward stated that he was a blacksmith at the Marysville cotton mills. He was found indifferent but was challenged peremptorily

    The following jurors were then summoned and all challenged for cause by Mr. Peters: Allen Corey, Pinder; Randolph Mabee, Burtt's Corner; Hayward Brown, Marysville; and Horace Draper, Pinder.

    Horace Draper, of Pinder, the father of three girls, had not formed a conclusive opinion. He was found indifferent but was challenged peremptorily. 

    Randolph Mabee, Burtt's Corner, said that on account of an old injury to his eyes he had not been able to read the newspapers. He had heard of the murders and heard the crime discussed somewhat but not to any extent. He had heard very little as he had been engaged in hauling lath.

    Mr. Peters objected to the juror on the grounds of defective vision, requesting him to tell if he could what kind of a tie Williams was wearing.

    Judge LeBlanc pointed out that the challenge under consideration was one of indifference and no provision could be made at this point for defective vision or even if the juror were blind and deaf.

    Mr. Mabee was found indifferent but was then challenged peremptorily and stood aside.

    Hayward Brown, a loom-fixer, of Marysville, was found indifferent and sworn as a member of the petit jury.

    Horace Draper, of Pinder, admitted having formed an opinion of Williams' guilt and had so expressed himself on a number of occasions. His opinion was not so set as to prevent him from giving the prisoner a fair trial, however. He was found indifferent burt was challenged peremptorily.

    Coun. Fran Coburn, of Harvey Station, Ralph Kilburn, of Kingsclear, Fred Seymour, of Nashwaaksis, and Angus McBean, of Taymouth were called and challenged for cause.

    Coun. Coburn, farmer, said he resided in Manners-Sutton and had a family. He had read all the accounts of the murder proceedings. He was found indifferent and sworn.

    Ralph Kilburn, of Kingsclear, farmer, was found indifferent but was challenged peremptorily by Mr. Peters.

    Coun. Fred Seymour, farmer, of Nashwaaksis, the father of ten children, including six girls ranging in age from two to twenty years, had made up his mind of the prisoner's guilt. The fact that he had two girls of his own approximately the same ages as those of the murdered girls would not affect his verdict or opinion. The triers reported Mr. Seymour as indifferent and he was sworn.

    Angus Mcbean, of Taymouth, concluded from what he had heard and read that the prisoner was guilty. He was prepared to find according to the evidence, however. He was reported indifferent and was sworn.

    Robert T. Baird, of Fredericton; Burpee McKeen, of Mouth of Keswick; Clowes Patterson, of Fredericton; and W.D. Gunter, of Fredericton, were called. Mr. Baird was stood aside by the crown and W.H. Bailey, of Nashwaaksis, was called. The four jurors were challenged for cause.

    Burpee McKeen, of Mouth of Keswick, farmer, said he read and discussed the murder accounts very little. He "had his thoughts" but wasn't quite sure of his guilt, although from what he read he believed he should be guilty. The triers reported Mr. McKeen indifferent. A preemptory challenge was then entered by Mr. Peters.

    W.H. Bailey, of Nashwaaksis, farmer, said he was a married man and had one daughter, 37 years of age. He was found indifferent and sworn.

    W.D. Gunter, of Fredericton, lumberman, said he had read practically all the newspaper accounts and he was prejudiced also by what he had heard since in court. He thought it would be impossible to change his opinion as he saw it now; but he admitted he was prepared to hear evidence and to abide by it. He was found indifferent and sworn.

    Clowes Patterson, of Fredericton, was challenged peremptorily, the challenge for cause being withdrawn.

    John Myshrall, of Myshrall Settlement, was called and challenged for cause. He said he had a family of nine, the youngest girl being twenty-three years of age. He was found indifferent and challenged peremptorily.

    Eben Staples, of Fredericton, was called and challenged for cause. Mr. Staples is a drug clerk and the father of two boys; he said he required strong evidence to change his conviction that Williams was guilty but was found indifferent and sworn, completing the petit jury.

    The court then announced that recess would be taken until 7:30 p.m. when the Crown would open its case.

Jury In Double Murder Case

No. 1—John N. Inch, Burtt's Corner, former York County Councillor.

No. 2—Normal L. Lawrence, Dumfries, farmer.

No. 3—William Hagerman, Burtt's Corner, general merchant.

No. 4—Luke Morrison, Fredericton, insurance agent.

No. 5—George Camp—Fredericton, livery stable proprietor

No. 6—Hayward Brown, Marysville, loom fixer.

No. 7—Frank Coburn, Manners-Sutton, York County Councillor, farmer.

No. 8—Fred Seymour, Nashwaaksis, York County Councillor, farmer.

No. 9—Angus McBean, Taymouth, farmer

No. 10—William H. Bailey, Nashwaaksis, farmer.

No. 11—William D. Gunter, Fredericton, lumberman.

No. 12—Eben Staples, Fredericton, druggist.

The Daily Gleaner Friday, January 23, 1925

    When the York Sittings of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick was adjourned by Mr. Justice LeBlanc at 8:05 o'clock last evening after three sessions yesterday the jury of twelve men to hear the case of Harry D. Williams, charged with the murder of his half sister's two two daughters, Cynthia and Necia Foster, aged 14 and 10 years, at Fosterville on November 25th last had been completed and Crown Prosecutor Peter J. Hughes, K.C., had outlined the Crown's case to the jury.

    Thirty-one of the forty-one petit jurors who had been summoned had been called and examined before the twelve who will decide Williams' fate were chosen and the whole day until 6 p.m., was taken up with the selection of the jury. Refused an application for adjournment of 24 hours in order to consult Very Rev. Dean Scovil Neales, who has been Williams' spiritual adviser since he was lodged in the York County Jail, as well as medical doctors for the admitted purpose of preparing for a plea of insanity, Fred H. Peters, who had been appointed to defend Williams, put every impediment in the way of the progress of the trial that legal skill made possible. He was sparring for time and he succeeded in delaying the commencement of the taking of evidence until today.

    The jury finally selected consists of twelve married men. Almost all of the jurors were challenged by Mr. Peters and were individually examined before triers appointed by the Court for the purpose. In almost every case the prospective jurymen said that he was convinced from what he had read in the newspapers that Williams was guilty of the murders and several of them said they would go into the jury box prejudiced against the accused; but finally when Judge LeBlanc took them in hand they said that their opinions in the case would be changed by sworn evidence in the court. Only two of the thirty jurors who were tried were found by the triers to be not indifferent. Six of the jurors are farmers, the others are a fire insurance agent, a general merchant, a loom fixer, a drug clerk, a livery stable proprietor, and a lumberman.

    Crown Prosecutor Hughes reviewed the case which the Crown would present, at a special sitting of the court last evening for that purpose. He referred to the accused being formerly known as Darius Thornton at Fosterville and later returning there as Harry D. Williams. He emphasized that the accused had especially asked the girls' mother to have them go to his shack on the afternoon of November 25th, when they met their horrible deaths, and told the jury it would be for them to prove whether Williams had committed "the most atrocious crime in the history of this county" or not.

    Only one new witness was forecast by the Crown Prosecutor, in addition to those called at the preliminary examination. Inasmuch as Mrs. Ward B. Foster, mother of the two girls, was now in a critical state of health following the birth of a baby girl a few days ago, Mr. Hughes said she would be unable to attend court and give evidence, but one of her sons would be called by the Crown to prove that Williams had especially asked their mother to send the girls to his camp at the time they went there on the afternoon of November 25th and when they met their horrible deaths.

    Mr. Hughes made no reference to the admissions of guilt which Game Warden Claude Peck and his brother, Enoch Peck, swore at the preliminary examination Williams had made to them. He said he "would not go into them as there were possible objections to them."

    Mr. Hughes, in opening his address to the jury, stated that they and he were called up onto do a duty which was certainly not a pleasant one, but which must be assumed by someone in order that society be protected when crimes are committed. A very serious, a terrible crime had been committed—perhaps the most terrible which has ever been committed in the county.

    The grand jury in the fulfillment of their duty returned a true bill against the prisoner at the bar for the murder of Cynthia Foster, one of the two girls. He would outline a few of the facts the Crown would attempt to establish.

    Ward Foster was residing at Fosterville with his nine children on their farm in the Parish of North Lake. The two girls, living with their parents, were attending school. The prisoner at the bar under the name of Harry D. Williams kin to the family, was living nearby. His mother, he was informed, was a Miss Thornton, and followed that name when formerly known as Darius Thornton. His mother had married and a daughter by her marriage became the mother of the murdered girls, thus establishing a blood relation.

    The prisoner had resided at Fosterville briefly under the name of Darius Thornton. He had returned again as Harry D. Williams prior to enlistment and following his discharge from the army in 1919 took up residence in Fosterville and in 1922 moving into the shack where the tragedy occurred and which was built in that year. Here he stayed when not working and it appeared that he was not working much.

    Here he was supplied with provision from the Foster family, was visited by members of the family and was well treated by them. Cynthia did most of the cooking for him. On November 24th last the prisoner came to the Foster house where he was met by the father on his return at 7 o'clock in the evening from his work. The prisoner had objected to Cynthia at least and possibly the other children taking part in a school concert. Cynthia had appealed to her father who aid in no uncertain way that she could go. Before he left the prisoner had asked Cynthia to come down to his camp the following day after school to do some cooking for him. She, whether jokingly or not, said she would not and did not apparently say she would when further coaxed.

    The following day Williams was seen with a dog he had given Cynthia, and one which would defend Cynthia and the girls, which he asked one of the Foster boys to tie up in Ward Foster's barn where he left it on his return. Again on this occasion Williams went to Mrs. Foster and asked her to let the children come down after school. Unfortunately Mrs. Foster's condition of health, following the recent birth of a child, prevented her attendance in court but one of the Foster boys would be called to show that Williams had asked that the girls be allowed to go to the camp.

    The girls returned from school and Cynthia and Necia set out for the camp, clad as they had been for school. Hilda was retained at home by her mother. This was the last time, as far as could be ascertained, that they were seen alive. Mrs. Foster intended to visit Mrs. Peck that afternoon and she did, returning early in the evening to find to their surprise that the children had not returned. After waiting until 10 o'clock Mr. Foster went in search of the girls to the camp which he found in darkness, the door closed but not locked. Opening the door, he discovered his two children murdered. While he could not be expected to give much detail, he saw that they were both bound and stiff in death. The camp was cold and there was no trace of dinner having been prepared as Williams had promised—and Williams wasn't there. Williams kept a rifle in the camp and it wasn't there. Mr. Foster left the camp, raised the alarm and others took up the search.

    Next day Dr. Turner, a coroner, came to make an examination. He would describe the situation which he and the other witnesses found, how the two girls' arms had been bound and both shot through the head, while the little girl's legs were also bound. Here Mr. Hughes paused to describe in detail the conditions revealed.

    There was no sign of a struggle in the camp, but Cynthia wore glasses and these were found inside the doorway. A sandbag had been found in the camp on a shelf. "I know of no legitimate use such a thing could be put to," said Mr. Hughes, "but of course it would be very useful to hit somebody over the head with." There was no evidence that this had occurred, however, added Mr. Hughes. Another set of cords similar to those binding the bodies was found on the floor while a coil of similar cord, a particular variety, was found in the camp. The elder girl was laying on her back on the bed and the evidence of the doctors pointed to a criminal assault.

    Two empty shells, similar to those used in Williams rifle, were found on the floor and the rifle that used to hand over his bed was missing from its usual place.

    Williams was not found until the following morning although the countryside had been scoured for him all night. When met he said, "Don't hurt me; I want to give myself up." When searched he had eight rifle cartridges in his possession and a bottle marked strychnine with some white powder in it. He was brought to Fredericton and charged with that crime.

    During and after the period of his detention at John Foster's there were various conversations with the prisoner. These he would not go into as there were possible objections.

    The prisoner now stood charged with that terrible crime. It had occurred in his shack, at the time he had said he would be there. It was for the jury to determine whether he was guilty or not of this horrible crime.

    The court was then adjourned until this morning at 10 a.m. after the constable in charge of the jury had been instructed that they could take the jury, who are quartered at the Queen Hotel, out for a walk or any place they desired to go provided they were not allowed to speak to anyone.

    Every facility will be afforded to procure witnesses for the defence of Harry D. Williams, charged with the double murder of his two little half-nieces at Fosterville, Mr. Justice LeBlanc announced here today. Witnesses requested by the defence, which is unable through destitute condition of the accused to bring these to court, will be supoenaed by the Crown at the public expense to give evidence at the trial.

    Mr. Justice LeBlanc, at the conclusion of this morning's session, which was entirely devoted to the examination and cross-examination of the first witness, Ward B. Foster, father of the murdered girls, enunciated the principle that, in a case of this kind where the accused was being tried for his life and in destitute circumstances, the Crown should, and if the Crown did not, the Municipality might produce any witness whether for or against the accused. He further stated that if the names of witnesses desired by the defense counsel were given to him he would express his desire that the Crown supoena the witnesses.

    This principle was laid down following an attempt made by Fred H. Peters, counsel for Williams, to introduce on cross-examination of Mr. Foster, the effects of statements made by the accused's wife, following his arrest, in an interview published in The Gleaner regarding the actions and demeanor of her former husband. Mr. Justice LeBlanc stated that he was not aware whether or not this principle had ever been stated before but that he would state it in connection with the case. The Crown had ... (the next two or three lines are indecipherable) ... had been known before the accused changed his name to Williams, be secured as a witness for the defence. P.J. Hughes, K.C., Crown Prosecutor, stated that the Crown had made every effort to procure all the witnesses who knew anything about the case without consideration of their evidence either for or against the accused. Mrs. Thornton had not been summoned because she resided beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in Houlton, Me., and as the wife of the accused could not testify against him.