The New York herald., 1867-12-02

THE DUNBAR PoLYGAMY CASE.

Trouble Among the Whale OIL Aristocracy-
Trial of the "Rcv." Edward w. Dunbar In
st. Paul, Minn.-The Parties All from the
Eastwnrd-IntercsfinE Testimony.
The trial OF the REV" Edward W. Dunbar for tho
alleged crime OF polygamy, commenced in st. Paul,
MINI, on tho 27th ulL For the State appeared
@. r. Robinson, County Attorney, and Young Webb
Tho defenco represented by william Lockren, B.
Gilnllsn and Jackson Locke.
The case was opened the State by the County At
torney who briefly recaptuated tho facts intended to
BE- proved relating to the marriage Of the defendant
with his first and second wives, the abandonment OF
both the he took to insratiae himself Mr.
Lewis family his pretending to be minister together
With many other facts bearing or less directly upon
the case After stating the facts intended be proved,
he read the Indictment, as follows:--
Edward W. Dunbar Is accused BY the Grand Jury OF
the county Of Hennepin, by this indictment, OF the
crime OF poygamy committed follows, to wn:-Thc
said Edward W. dunbar on the 18th Of November, A.
D. 1865. At the town now cyI OF Minneapolis In the
county o. Hsnnep s an nasns se nsn @
tray 10 the statute in such case made and provided aud
against the peace and dignity OF the State Minnesota
Dated at Minneapolis, In the county OF Hennepn, the
2lst day Of November, A. d. 1887.
| Tho examination OF the witnesses was then CON-
| Zachariah +. Jenncy, sworn-I reside at Taunton
Mass, and acquainted with tho defendant and have
on the ship John, and afterwards Introduced him into
our family.
q. Are you related 70 tne doiendans oy marriage or
Objected to by Mr. Lochren on the ground that no
| othor marriage was alleged in the Indictment Mr.
Lochren insisted that every fact intended 10 DO relied
constituting the offence Should be distinctly set forth
that the nrst marriage was OF prime importancc, and
| ought 10 have been alleged with moro particularly.
Mr. Robinson said ho had followed the form set forth
i In the statute, and thought II sufficient
Mr.. Lochrcn replied that the Legislature had no
/ authority or power to prescribe form Of indictment
which made IL unnecessary 10 ailege tho material facts
| which constitute tho crime charged. Objection over
| ruled.
Q state whether Mr. Dunbar Is n married manY OBJ.
jecicd 10 and the objection sustained.
| Q. Was you present when Mr. Dunbar was marriedf 2
A. was; he was marned a. New Bedford, Mass, in
April 1s40. to Caroline NJ Jenney, my sister Nrs Dun
| bar the lrst wife, Is in the Court House.
counssl-Mrs Dunbar, please to stand up. lhrs
Dunbar the lst wife, stood up and was identified by
was well acquainted with tho defendant and often saw
him and bis rst wife after their marriage and for some
time boarded Win them IN the same house; 'nsy occs.
sdered and vile By every one they lived together
for several years. aud had Ave children three Of whom
| living; one OF them is seven years old, the
other nnc and the third eighteen Mra Dunbar far
as knos, Is now his wife; they are now married. I
OF nothing that has occurred since their marriage
70 change that relation 10 each other; I am
| acquainted with The Handwriting OF the do.
my possession several ls,,ers written by Dunbar Cwt-
r. shown the letters aud Identifies theml; the de-
sane ooansa s o h
WIFE with the exception OF ono or two which were sent
M E Lsys s Mss II A s ., q, ~sr. married ..
on Sycamore street. New Bedford he and his family
resided sometime at Nantucket Afterwards al Provl.
dencc, l., aud at various other places and he part
o. the time al ST. Louis and In Sew York state; for the
last fourteen years The family has resded IN New Bed
| ford
Cross. .exsminet-Durng the last fourteen years Mr..
Dunbar has resided al Nsw Bedford, be there
al the time; think have not him for two years;
have often seen him write; hayo a note from him in
my pocket cannot tor certain say that him write
~ have often him write; bis hand dwrug " bold
and open. The witness exam ned NJ great lensn
upon this point, but nothing important was silcied1
Caroline NJ Daaoar, the nrs' other wife Of the de-
fenfsut was called and took the stand The counsel for
the defendant we're asked " they objected 70 her beng
sworn They replied that they did object and ~ the
same time stood upon their right and did not
court M Lochren stated that he individually objected.
gooa aeh of nannnvsfins was prAeised on both
sdes The defence, not Wishing 10 admit the marriage
Of the witness hy ooseng and the coanse Tor thetAs
SEEKING TO drive them 10 IL The Cours nnaly decided
her eeal
Mrs. Anlra Amy s~crn--lshs 10 the rstsr OF Mrs
Danoar The nrs aud of Mr. Jsnnsy III have been &C.
qustnted WITH tie defendant n;neesn years. he and my
SISTER were ma ned 10 1912 At New Beafofd was prss.
ens A. the wedding: the ceremony was performed by
Rev. Jonsihsn caiy; MI Csdy ~ss pastor Of Pleasant
street Ncthods, church, New Beifcrd my father and
mother were present st the wedding; my r. bess name
WAS Edward Jsnnsy: my mother was named Deborah
lsauey; ms DHnbsrs msden rsmc was Caroline ".
Jenney; have e2d1d al the time in New Bedford for
thir,y.Afa yealA Wiib the sAeepAcn oi oae YEAR