Not-so-good old days

This week's example of our ancestor's reality to be just as nasty as our contemporaries is particularly unpleasant for readers. It's a sad tale in oh so many ways. Nevertheless, we present it as it appeared. Norway Advertiser, March 3, 1933:

At the opening of court, Monday afternoon, E. Walker Abbott acting county attorney, opened the case. He outlined the facts of the case as the State expected to prove it to the jury, pointing out that the respondent had been married but had divorced her husband, some three years ago. At the time of the alleged murder, July 24, 1932, she was the mother of a boy, eight years old, and a girl five years of age, and was living with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Horatio March, at their home on Granite St., Mexico. The evidence would show that she left the supper table that evening about 6:30 and went to the basement toilet. At that time she gave birth to a male child.

The county attorney then continued and told the jury that after she had removed the new-born child from the hopper, she got an old pillow slip from the rag bag in the cellar, put the body into it and then put it back in the bag, then she proceeded to clean up the cellar.

Mrs. Murch went down and found her daughter on her hands and knees, cleaning up the floor, helped her upstairs to bed, and called Dr. McDougall from Rumford.

The doctor sent the woman to the hospital. His examination showed that she had given birth to a child. He returned to the March home about 11 o'clock that night and after searching for about ten minutes, the respondent's father, Horatio Murch, found the body of the infant.

Sheriff W. O. Frothingham and County Attorney E. Walker Abbott conducted an investigation and an autopsy seemed to reveal injuries that led to the arrest of Mrs. Smith on the charge of killing her new-born child.

The state rested its case about 2:15 Tuesday afternoon and Albert Beliveau for the defense made a motion that a directed verdict of not guilty be ordered by the court. He argued that the state had failed by any evidence offered to connect Mrs. Smith with the killing of her infant son.

Attorney General Chapman said the State believe the evidence showed that Mrs. Smith had been grossly and criminally negligent. She had kept the knowledge of her condition from her mother, who should have known.

Her story said he, is that the baby was born and fell into the bowl, and that she then took upon herself the duty of deciding whether it was dead or alive. She did not seek a physician's help, but stuffed the body in the pillow tick and hid it in the rag bag. I feel that she is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and that the jury should be given the case.

Justice Emery briefly reviewed the circumstances of the case and said it was his duty if he believed that the evidence as presented would not induce a jury to bring in any verdict other than not guilty, to direct the jury so to do. Giving the State every benefit, carefully considering all the evidence, all due consideration, he did not feel that the jury would do otherwise than return a not guilty verdict and he should therefore grant the motion of the defense.

The verdict of not guilty was returned.

As is our custom, we try to exactly reproduce the grammar, spelling, punctuation and style of the original. Commas might appear where least expected and remain absent where we’d expect them if the item was written nowadays. On the other hand, consistency was not considered of utmost importance, so variations of a spelling might appear within one story. In addition, some words were abbreviated differently than today. Where brief explanations of terms are considered necessary, they are presented in brackets [] within the quote. Otherwise, explanations appear at the beginning or at the conclusion, without quotes. Parenthesis () used in a quoted passage appeared in the original.