Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1857-02-16

would not De recipient of his fortune and
moreover on the very day of his death he made
| arrangements and drew lease to Mr.. Stans-
bury, to be signed on the following day, Sat
urday. by which Mr.. Stansbury was to take
possession of his house in Bond street on the
LIST of May next, and expressed to several par
ties his great qualification at the prospect of
| getting rid of Mrs. Cunningham aud getting
her out of the house at that time. He stated,
in addition, that she logged him, watched
him, listened at his doors, entered his rooms
with false keys, stole the key of his fire proof
safe, and had stolen from it a note for 5000
which she had given him in payment for a
judgment against another party which he had
assigned to her.
Such relations as these are very singular as
between man and wife; but the most striking
evidence of all, as against the hypothesis of a
marriage between her and Mrs. Cunningham
and DR.. Burdell, and in favor of the other
hypothesis of sham marriage between her
and Mr.. Eckel. or some one else personating
DR. Burdell, is found in the fact that she COM
menced a suit for breach of promise against
Dr. Burdell in ugust or September last, her
complaint alleging that DR.. Burdell had vio-
lated her person; on the 22d of October the
suit was dropped by her instructions to her
counsel. and DR.. Burdell released from his
bail bonds on the 2Sth of the same month,
the alleged marriage is said to have taken
place. and yet it was elected from the counsel
Of Mrs. Cunningham employed to conduct
that suit, when they were produced before the
Coroners's inquest as witness, that several
weeks after the 28th Of October she applied
to them, saying that she had then in contem.
plation to re- open or recommence the suit for
breach of promise. That is to say, three
weeks after she alleges that she was married
to DR.. Burdell, and produces a certificate TO
prove 1t, she informs her counsel, Messrs.
Thayer & Chatheld, two very distinguished
members of the Bar, that she is about to sue
the man who then, at that identical time, as
she now would prove, must have been her
husband. The evidence shows that she and
DIR. B urdell were on very bad terms at the time
he accused her of stealing the note for 5000
some months ago; that he called in several
policemen from the street TO arrest Ter; and
that they. the Policemen, then dissuaded him
from so doing. One of these policemen tes-
tihes that on that occasion she used violent
language towards the Doctor, and declared,
according to the poceman's word, /" that she
would have his (Burdel's) hearts blood. =
One of the women servants of Mrs. Cum
ningham likewise testifes as t. quarrels be.
tween the Doctor and Mrs Cunningham and
her eldest daughter, Augusta; and that the
Doctor told her (the servant) that in quar-
rel Miss Augusta once had attacked PERSONAL
ly aud torn out some of his hair. We believe
there is no evidence of any threats made by
Mr.. Eckel against the deceased but the sus-
picion falling SO heavily on him has its origin
in the relations existing between him and Mrs.
Cunningham, and its apparent confirmation
in the extraordinary testimony of Mr.. Far
rell. which we shall presently consider
The fenpra1lv ranaivad fbaorx, Of RI
der is, that Mrs. Cunningham had established
herself at DIR. Burdell's house, hoping to en-
trap him into a marriage. Finding herself
defeated in this object, she induced her para
mour Eckel, to personate Burdell in sham
marriage, either with the view of claiming
her dover, sum between 900 and $40,-
900, as Burdell's widow, in case of his natur-
al death, or with her paramour assassinating
him with that express object and that the
fact that Burdell, on the day preceding the
night of his murder, had made lease Of his
house, by the signing of which, at the time
appointed on the next day, he would, on the
LIST of May next have deposed her and her
family, and thrown them on the world, has.
tened the catastrophe, and caused it to occur
on the night in question. That the murder
was perpretrated by them the instant Burd ell
entered his rooms; that tsey had not anti
cipated any cutlery, and that the single and
half-ehhed atterance of the word murder
alone revealed the deed at the time, the vic :
tim being nearly instantly despatched with
fifteen wounds, almost any one of which was
by the physician deemed fatal. That the
bloody clothes of the murderers were burned,
which accounts for the smell of burning WOOL
en- perceived by SO many witnesses in Bond
street, the night. between IL and o clock
and that the instrument or instruments with
which the deed was committed, were during
the night taken away from the house rnd Sc
creted by one of the murderers, after all evil
dences of the bloody deed had been removed
from his person.
From the second story room door where the
murder was committed down to the street
door, slight marks oflresh blood mad been dis
covered, as well as upon the inside knob of
the street door and upon the edge of the street
door, at height of about four or four and
half feet from the sill but no blood appear
ing on the outside knob of the street door,
brings confirmation that the murderer did
not while his hands were bloody leave the
house and close the door behind him while
the appearance of the blood upon the inside
knob and the edge of the door Is conclu-
sively accounted for by the testimsny OF Far
rell, by whom Eckel is pointed out as the
probable assassin. For Farrell's testimony
is, that Eckel came to the door a few sec
onds after he (Farrell) heard the cry of MUIR
der and fall like barrel on the floor, and
holding the door apparently with his right
hand on the inner knob and his left on the
edge of the door, put his head out, perceived
Farrell sitting on thssteps, and ordered him
away fercely and frightfully. Farrell pretty
clearly identifies Eckel The marks of blood
are just where Farrell. describes Eckes hand
to have been. aud Farrelrs testimony is the
|. only circumstantial evidence adduced thus far
going to fix the guilt on him. II is of the
gravest moment, then, to ascertain its truth,
which, however. has not been assaulted direct
ly by ayy evidence, but by its apparent con :
contradiction by several other witnesses.
On this head the evidence given by Messrs
Brooks, StrangmaD, and Ross, seems to us to
be worthy of serious consideration, and 10 be
pretty conclusive. But a contemporary con-
tains q report of an informal conversation he.
tween its reporter and Mr. Ross, wherein the
latter states that Farrell's testimony is not
true, because when DIR. Burdell entered the
door of his house, he (Ross) was twenty FIVE
feet from him toward Broadway; and when
he (Ross) passed the door, Farsell, he says,
was not on the steps; aud when he (Ross)
had gone a distance of about q house and a
half Cor, in other words, thirty seven feet),
he heard the cry Of murder, turned and look :
ed toward Broadway, and did not see Farrell
sitting. Now, although Mr.. Ross is an erchi-
tect by profession, and consequently his evil
dence as to distances ought to be taken as pre-
else, yet he thus states that while lie was
walking sixty-three feet during that little
time Burdell must have gone from the street
door up stairs, reached his rooms, and there