New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-12-13

ft.nrd in tie tree = about 80 rods; cond be seen
fran the barn the children were not quarrel
some, and were aifectiouate toward each other
Other Witnesses were called but nothing o.
importance was ELECTED
Tie testimony Tor the prosecution here closed
NJ Wheaton, the Counsellor the prisoner oPea.
81 the defense with an eloquent spe=eh on the
importance OF gistTusriug clrCumstautsi evidence,
aad charging that the prosecution had failed en-
tirey - make out case against the prlsone-
Arcrg SHADE testified that he the irst to
discover the body OF the younger child, there
was no blood that h. saw, h. did not look round
t. discover any thing
I'95i3 L1aet, called. said h had no kaowledga
except hea7say that The woods al the back o; the
harm hsd been searched on Monday or Tuesday
uben had but ole pair OF coarse boots.
O Il. Chlttender assisted in making the rnea-
surameut of the several localities marked on the
map shown from the corZield, in whch Dunbar
worked on the day Of the murder, TO where the
first boy was found, is 81 rods from where the
sons Of Albert Dunbar were at work to the same
il was GO rods, from who're the youngest boy was
found to where the other was hung, 81 rods from
the barn to the bushes is % feet; from where the
frst boy was found 10 the house is 80 rods; there
was @ hole In the back part OF tae barn large
enough for q man to 90 through.
Several witnesses were sworn, who testified
merely as to what the prisoner had said about
" here be had last seen thu children ho1 h
acted when told that the children were found;
and what b. had said about searching the woods
wtere the bodies Were found. \ number also
swoge as to his general good character. All said
1t was good, except bis uncle Albert, who did not
think il morally good.
Mr. j. Hadey then addressed the jury ia be.
half Of the prisoner. he argued that the evil
dcuce was altogether presumptive there was
nothing conclusive in any part OF the testimony;
there was 40 proof that the prisoner tue per-
son who saw the children last that nothing
could be drawn from the fact that Mr.. Lester was
to 70 to Chesterve on the day the children were
missed and that the prisoner knew of 1t; nor
was the fact OF the prisoners wife being induced
TO 90 TO their fathers on that day at all remark
able IOT she had complained OF a lame shoulder,
and expressed a wish to go before that day The
swingle has been brought forward as evidence;
but it bears no mark OF blood; any one could
have obtained it from the barn well as the
prisoner AS for the rope, there was no certainty
about the evidence IN regard to 1t a. all. Then
the fact that the prisoner had done only Wo hours
work on the Saturday on which it is claimed that
this murder was committed, Is all accounted for
by the fact that his time was all accounted tor
he was kept from bis work by the rain in the al.
ternoon OF that day his mother saw him in the
house with herself. 1t was supposed that the
prisoner had a strong interest in the death OF
these children such was not the fact Testers
death would not benefit him, whether the chill
dren were alive or dead; the prisoner could not
become the heir of ester il he died without will
the property would go to his nearest relatives.
Tie allegation that the prsonerhad tried to di.
vert the search for the children from the places
where they were found was without foundation,
for one OF the witnesses had passed within three
rods of the tree where the body was found IN
company with the prisoner As to the boots,
where was the evidence that the prisoner wore
those boots the day the murder is said to have
been committed? Were there not hundreds OF
pairs OF boots in that neighborhood with nails in
them that would make ust such marks he did
not believe the Jury would hang dog on such
evidence as was now before them, much less
human being 1t is true the prisoners brother had
taken the boots out Of the way, but it was mere
act ofcautOn. There was no attempt on the part
of the prisoner to conceal these boots H had LETT
them openly where he had last used them. The
prisoners character was unassalIed by any one.
His previous character had been good. 1t was not
likely that he would plunge thus into the depth OF
crime at single leap Who was to benefited
by the prisoners death David Lester. The
prisoner was the only one who had a claim on the
farm owned by him, who was urging the son OF
his wife to lelons tomb. disposition OF that
kind had been exhibited in this Court.
Mr. Hadlcy closed by hoping that if any doubt
remained OH the minds of the Jury, that the prs-
oncr would have the benefit OF it, and that thcy-
would not assume the responsibility OF the death OF
a human being on the mere suspicion that he was
icon.
Rufus w. Pociham, on the part of the prosecu
tion began his address by stating that it was con-
fde1tly reported that the defense had man on
The jury in their confidence and thatif the prison
or was not freed there was certainty of disa-
greement. He merely stated what was reported
Hs honed, nav. he believed it was not trne
He tren commented on the excitement which
was so mach spoken of by the opposing counsel.
But there was no necessity to rely upon excite.
menf. The evidence had not been controycrted
IN q single material point a crime OF character
Ike thar under consideration was done in secret
with as few witnesses as possible The evidence
therefore from the nature Of the case, must be
circumstantisl. The counsel then gave a descrip-
tb4 bos snd tSe nr;soner showing that there was
osnfFiSiant notive in the hone that had sprung up
y