On Feb. 21, 1906, the Greniers made their appearance in Superior Court. They are both represented by Attorney Walter W. Scott. Elmore’s case is called first, and the paper reports an obvious misprint, stating that his plea is “not guilty.” It’s clear that he’s pleading guilty; however, Attorney Scott offers a brief explanation of the offense. Grenier and Rogers were friendly, and Grenier acted “thoughtlessly, not realizing what he was doing at the time.” The sentence was a $50 fine, six months in the County jail, and payment of the costs of prosecution.

Rosie Grenier was next and following a plea of guilty and a request for leniency from Attorney Scott, the sentence was the same, except she would be serving her time at the County Farm, and not the jail, not the same formal surroundings as her brother.

The following day, the 22nd, in Superior Court, John Rogers’ case is called first, a charge of breaking and entering in the nighttime “the hen coop of Delphane Dejardins “and stealing three hens, the offense occurring on December 25,1905. It is Solicitor Dwight Hall for the State, Attorney W.W. Scott for the Defendant. Rogers retracts his earlier plea of not guilty and admits to the crime, but he claimed that he “did not break,” but his companion at the time, Eugene Cote, “did the breaking.” According to Attorney Scott, “they were in the home of a hard working woman who had nothing to eat and they went out to get the chickens so that the woman and children could have something”. Perhaps technically a theft, but also an act of charity, it being Christmas and all. Scott then went on to point out that Rogers was presently facing a suspended sentence from Rockingham County, which would go into effect at the end of whatever time he was handed here in Strafford. He asked for leniency.

Solicitor Hall advised that Rogers had also previously served a year in State Prison “for a like offense,” and had also done time following a conviction for larceny from a person. And, of course, there was the short-lived escape from the Strafford County jail. The Court responded with a sentence of one-and-a-half to three years “at hard labor” in Concord.
Later in the day, a jury was drawn for William Hanna’s trial, followed by opening statements, once again Dwight Hall for the State, and Attorney William S. Pierce, a newcomer to the local scene, representing the Defendant. The first witness was the store owner, Thomas Hughes. He told of finding a broken window, damage to the cash register, money missing from his office desk, $26 set aside to pay a specific bill, and folded in a certain way. Assistant Marshall Wilkinson accompanied officers to Hanna’s room and informed him that he was wanted for questioning. Hanna agreed to a search, and money was found in a sock and in Hanna’s pants pocket, several bills appearing to have traces of blood. The total amount of bills — $26 — was the exact amount missing from Hughes’ desk. Pliers and screwdrivers were also found, and the latter appeared to correspond to marks on the cash register.

Officer Cornell testified that he had located the money in the sock. On cross-examination, he doesn’t recall who demanded entry to Hanna’s room, or what was said about searching it, or what Hanna said. Officer Young said he helped locate the pliers and screwdriver, after Hanna agreed to a search, but did not see where the cash was found. Officer Fody testified that he saw Hanna on Third Street around 11 p.m. in the company of a younger man named Broadbent. On cross-examination, he agreed that the Hughes store was some considerable distance from the Upper Square, that he observed Hanna go into a nearby candy store, Hanna spoke to him when they passed on the street, and did not appear to be acting suspiciously. Mrs. Mary Hefferon testified that she knows Hanna, and that prior to his arrest, she was asked by relatives of Hanna if he could have a room and meals at her home. The last witness was City Marshall McKone who said he had fitted the screwdrivers to the marks on the Hughes cash register, and they appeared to match. Solicitor Hall then advised the Court that the parties stipulated that while Hanna had been awaiting trial, he had escaped from the local jail. The State then rested.

William Hanna then took the stand in his own defense. He stated that he had come to Dover on Aug. 18 and had worked at various jobs since: a shoe shop in Somersworth, at George William’s lunchroom in Dover, and another shoe shop. He had used the tools found by the police in his earlier employment. On the night in question, he had been at the poolroom with Broadbent; they left and crossed the Upper Square toward Third Street, where he saw Officer Fody. Stopped at the candy shop, made a purchase, arrived back at his room around midnight, and did not go out after that. Next thing he knew, the officers were at his door, and he told them they could not search without his consent. One officer found money in his sock and asked what else he had.

As to the jail break, two others had sawed and removed the bars. Hanna said he had been feeling ill, and when he saw the others leave, he decided to follow. He was arrested following the escape at a rooming house on Saint Thomas Street. That would have been Sunday night around 12:30. He denied that the cash found in his room during the first arrest was from the Hughes store, but claimed it was money he had saved from his various jobs. Under cross-examination by Solicitor Hall, Hanna acknowledged having a prior record, at least three convictions in Massachusetts for daytime burglaries.

There followed several witnesses who had had contacts with Hanna in the past, either fellow workers or casual acquaintances, a Mr. Van Ness and Albert Locke, each of whom testified that they had observed the Defendant with various amounts of cash, earnings from his several jobs, well before the break-in at the Hughes store. George Bernard, owner of the local pool hall, confirmed Hanna’s financial status and also testified as to Hanna being at his establishment on the evening of the crime until around 11 p.m., when he left with Broadbent, which would have been just prior to the sighting by Officer Fody.

Attorney Pierce then made a closing argument of an hour’s duration. Solicitor Hall took half that time for the State, and Judge Pike followed with instructions for the jury. They retired to deliberate at 11:55 a.m. There was no word throughout the afternoon and early evening, but at 8:50 p.m., it was reported that they had been unable to reach a verdict, with word from the inside indicating that there were only four jurors in favor of a conviction. Judge Pike declared a mistrial, the jurors were discharged, and William Hanna was returned to the County jail.

(the story will be continued….)