New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-25


not recognize al al; re had lager whishsr. -
deceased has no whisks-., eicep, go.,ee; The 80
OF the hair the face Of the deco sed and Tie
married is the same - A. 81 ,hiuk did,, Ga II.
had seen Mr.. Eckel, Mr.. Marvin saws: statsS -.
the body up stairs esembed more the man rns,;s
than tie man shown 70 me as Mr. Eckel" Still H..
ther: Il did lot say !leeosni1ed the body-oOt u
that TO be the body Of the man | mar ed for ~
s,ked Ire 10 question to lesd TO such arsm.-ty
Now nothing be palmer than thai the Rev M,
Marvin was called witness a. the nou.s, .oisi e.
:he purpose Of identifying the parties be msr"a ~
ON tie General question OF recognition he WAS s,-1
hound 10 make a. full and free development "a la
in hi. rover. have no doubt that he did. We nux
take him as answering according TO his KNOWLEDGE a
the time He justites having given no portye
opipou on that occasion, by sayng-"l did not deem
uy.elf justified in doing 80, iuasnsch "a did aet
hear The nan speak, which Is one Important pom. n
identifying an individual; the voice aid NE atade,
the pcsition Of the body when standing Thu
true; but these points are just as important n0vs
they were at the time of the inquest. Mr.. hsvh
al,o freely admits that he hss been theorib.ng upsa
this qreri:on of idenlitc alton. When be irs entered
the dwelling No. 81 Bond street, the idea Va
preached into him that Mr.. Eckel vas the mamie
was under impression before he saw the corpes
but be ACIDS that my faith in that theory was nightly
sbSken when went up and saw the dead body: ha
was enc of the reasons after had seen the dead boly
was not willing to swear poeinvely. he'd not 4
that time got entirely free from that theory, and sup
po.ed. when saw Eckel. did not know bat nieA
see the man l had married. Again" AougHH
pos.ible might see . man in whom there were more
points Of resemblance than in DIR. Burden." II ths
was possible IN regard to comparison with M Esis,
is it Lo possible " res.Io 70 msst pOs vet
frorte6' With man ain whom there are more polts
Of resemblance than in Dr. Burden,' and 20 b jssa.
fed ip taking another theory. .,;..,. .v.
On seeing Mr.. Ecksl, Mr.. Marvin continued; NJ
theory was al gone" and - took the other theory,
that BurdeN was the man; WAS confident Oft - Of
nv existence Mr.. Marvin states, also, that stnes
the dec 0ents death he has converted with unniocf
of persons whe have described the personal chsse.
,e1istiSs appearance and manners of the deeeased
and the description has invariably tailed with ha
own recollection. This admission OF hearsay, and
this teozing very much in the way OF clear and
unadult.rated act Of the memory II the witness hes
been applying the facts 10 different theories, hos beea
listening to descriptions. has ale wed his mnd 70 %
impressed with the views OF Others, has been unwl.
irg 10 give deiIite answer about one man until NJ
las seen another and then expressed his convicto,
founded largely upon his comparison between ne
twc-in such case the Court must be careful to dr.
criminate between the fact aud the theory. IL sp.
pears her that at the Coroner lnquest the wkness
when asked if he recognized the body Ut the do.
gueneotyps, did not say that he did, stated That
there was resemblance about the mouth, the color
of the beard and hair was the same ou' tne whskee
Of the an were larger than those Of the corpse and
again after be had seen Mr.. Eckel, ana declared
he was rot the man, on the question OF recognition
berC again put said the body resembled moro
the man than Mr.. Eckel did, when vas Just
no resemblance at all. These we're hr. MMyins
statements at the inquest aud l must do him
the Justice to say that, after careful eAsmlna.
tiop. do not find them TO vary from his testimony
before ME. The only difference between his position ct
that time and at this hes in conclusions, NOT IN faes
His evidence before me as TO identity IS limfsd w
some resemblance in the mouth, the color 81 the mar
and beard the size and weight Of the body;
and as to dissimi arity, the greater length Of the
vhskers-in regard to the mustsche at the inquest q
could not say, but now he recollected 1t; may ADJ
that the resemblance about the mouth If 1t related
iresmen. or expression, could not be very distinctive
as the lower part Of the face was mostly covered WIN
the beard In the absence then Of an act OF distinct
rect gntion after twice being placed the stand thes
are the points of resemblance upon which sm asked
to pronounce the Identification OF person so TO DO
made out in of secret marriage and devolutioa
Of property to declare it legal conclusion Ii
| enough, in my judgment, that MIR. Marvin did not
| recognize the man, afirmatively, when he was ..
voed to test that very question. That was the who
object Of his examination Of the corpse-twiee be
1 theIe-the dagueneotype was shown 20 hm-As eAW
Mr. Eckei-twice he was placed on the stand and he
never spCke to an act Of recognition but only re-
gard 10 resemblance in regard to which he reasoned
theorged ana compared lie did not fnd the same pic
iure but sintude to it, no greater, in my opn.
ion than might be expected in an effort 10 simulate
lie person Of the decedent; and II, at this moment
person were produced who presented more points Of
resemblance 10 the man he married than DIR. Burdel,
We might reasonably anticipate change OF bis belief
| ,rd CONCLUSION.
3. There are several considerations touching the
oircun stances connected with this marriage and other
proofs sdducsd by the claimant, which may well b
/ considered here.
| o.l The gentleman called on the clergyman thres
tres twice in the open dsy-the act was bold, bot
holder than the daring requisite to achieve simu.
lated marriage required. The first visit il crime were
designed, was necessary to make the arrangements
ana insure secrecy for 1t is Observable that the in.
junction against publication was made and satisfse.
tory reply received at that time. The last Interview
grew out Of the fact that the certificate was rot pre-
pared at the marriage.
TO- Ii is urged, also, that an application would not
have been proposed to DIR. Snodgass, and that 80 D.
tin ae friend Of his as Dir. Marvin would not have
been selected to perform the ceremony, had fraud
been on foot. But DIR. BurdelI at that time not
known 10 Dr. SnOdgrass. Who tell had the latteI
been found at home at Goshen by the claimant whether
q word would have been uttered touching marriage;
sno, finally, the only witness who could have testified
TO the particulars Of tho interview at Goshen was not
examined There is just enough IN the circumstances
/ to give a color of openness, and that IL al.
Augusta states tbst DR.. Burdel said " He should
like mother TO go TO Goshen" and it was understood
the wedding should be at the house, and yet the dece
dent was lot acquainted with DIR. Snodgrassand not
crt was made ~ have the minister selected IN h
i place perform the ceremony at the house.
c) Or. Ware testified that be met DIR. Burdell with
two ladies' on the west eide Of Broadway crossing TO the
moth side OF Blocker street, the evening Of the
18th u October last about O'clock and the Doctor
| bowed 10 him. that he was returning from No. "
MucdoU2a street, the house Of friend, where he had
called in consequence Of letter he received from hin
| that day dated the 9th Of October In crJssexarn
| ration, Il appeared that he had been ~ the sam.
place, at the same time of the day the same bust
rtss great number Of ii mes before and sef me re-
eop Of the letter, and n no had NOT connected tns
letter with the occurrence in the street, un ne touno
,be document the week previous to ms exclamation
after search msde at the instance OF person n'ef
| ested for the claimant.
d.. The claimant stated to Miss Van Ness in Sep
| TENDER, when the marriage was spoken Of, tia. the
Doctor, herself and Augusta were going 70 Europe IN
| the String In November she told DR.. W h. Robert,
| thar She and Augusta going. There + no oues