The New York herald., 1867-12-02


and saebslfs lie defendant and my sitter
nad nvs children; two have died; the three
who are now alive are aged respectively seven.
Bedford abou. year and ors-hsIf ago. his wife and
children were present. up &c years ago the defendant
and my sister lived toRetaer ani wife, and were
generally reputed 70 % married; am acquainted Win
his Handwriting. lad have HIM wrte this defend
ant here Is The speak of his wife is here IN court
the Oldest chid the next George Edward and the last
Is Natter lies; have often heard him CAL Ars Dun
bar his wfe.
The State then offered certified copy of the record
OF the marriage This objected 70, because it had
mol been shown that there was Law in Massachusetts
requiring such record TO be kept and that consequently
the paper offered MAS private wiring The objection
was sustained.
The state then offered what purported to be tho
original marriage certificate. Ths objected TO, be-
cause II mad not been shown that the person giving tne
cerlcaie was authorized TO give It and the objection
John p rummer, swcrn-I am clerk OF this court and
nave the marriage records OF this county Ia my posses
sion ttae witness identified book which WIS handed
to him as one volume OF tho records Of marriage
kept In his ohcel tho introduction OF this re-
had not bean nroyed m tina. tbs n.r.y nrsseDdns
70 soiemnze the marriage, was duly authorized 10 per-
form that ceremony as required by the statute; is was
also objected to because the first marriage was not
proved the objections overruled the State oner
ing TO produce satisfactory evidence Of the authority OF
then brought in record OF the certificates or ordiuaion
or credentials Of ministers OF the gospel which was
b. r. Scriven, sworn--I minister Of tho gospel
and reside in ST. Anthony; resided in Brooklyn IN
November 1865; am acquainted with the defendant
have been acquainted with him since September 26.
1850; am acquainted with Miss Eunice Belle Lewis.
and have bsen since September. 1865; performed a
marriage ceremony between her and the defendant
| and recognize both parties now in court; l mar
ried them on the 18th Of November, 1896,
between nine and ten id the morning. at her fathers,
Mr. G. D. Lewis, in Minneapolis, Hennepn county,
State Of Minnesota THE marriage certificate given to
,ion overruled) There was large number present
| tho time Of the marriage whom did not know. ION
reflection the Court ruled out the above certificate
IT, B Lewis and his wife, man named Wade, daugh-
ter OF Mt Lewis called Fannie and others present
The original marriage cerulcas furnished for record
was shown the witness and identified. Tho admission
OF this certificate objected to because 1t not Wit
messed in accordance with tho statutes and the csec-
ton sustained The record of certificates Of
rage introduced short time previous also ruled out
Cross examnedI came here In 1860, and was selling
lightning rods for some time; am minister Of the
gospel
The defence offered to show that Mr. Dunbar before
no was married, sought to induce Miss Lewis to delay
the marriage till the family could make some inquiry
as to his Character and standing, but that she objected
and insisted upon the marriage taking place immedi-
B. G. Lewis sworn-I reside in this town; am &C
quainted with the defendant; think became ac-
held at Harrison Hall abou. year ago. am the father
OF Miss Eunce Belle Lewis; he was married at my
M IN us @ sy % my daughter Eunce &c on ns n.a
intimate with my family after the Good Tenplars'
Convention; the defendant resided with my daughter as
her husband TIL soms time IN the February following
the marriage.
The further hearing here postponed until the fol-
lowing day.
Referring TO this the ST. Paul Pioneer Of the 2sh
ult says
During the afternoon Mr. LAWS and his wife, the pa
rents OF the second Mrs. Dunbar together with both OF
the wives, sat Immediately behind the prisoner but
during all the trial he failed 70 cast his eyes upon either
Of them and appearei perfectly und isurbed. None Of
the testimony seemed 10 have the least effect upon him,
and be heard ALL apparently with the utmost indii-
ference But once twice was he TO confer with
hts counsel, and then very briefly in Iced. II
Is understood that witnesses will be In
troduced for tho defence. Even the brother
OF the defendant the Rev. Charles Dunbar,
Is not present on the trial, though affidavit
filed by the defence stated that he material wit
and that the prisoner could not safely proceed to
trial without him. good deal OF interest was mani
tested whom the first Mrs. Dunbar took the stand and
all appeared eager TO SEQ her. She is middle aged
lady, OF rather preposscssinR appearance but gave
misakable evidence Of having experienced great deal
OF sorrow. All were disappointed that she was not
allowed to testify.
I'VE have since been informed by telegraph that Dun
bar has been found guilty