The Portland daily press., 1869-09-22
Trial of Francis Mas97'hy
FOR THE
Murder Of Patrick Murray

Attorney Webbs opening statement, which we
\ were obliged 30 omit yesterday:
| Two surgeons came; they examined him. They
| could find upon him evidence OF woun5s. no
skin was broken; there was no depression no sink
ing In or following in Of the skull upon receiv-
ing information that he had complained of an ipiu-
ry upon his head tlor by this time he was in state
OF utter lusensbiliiy) tho OF his insensibt,
being very rapid, and they made careful examlna.
tion, and finally determined that surgical opera
| ton was necessary. They laid bare the skull by
| taking away the scalp upon the right side OF the
head, think, and there found fracture Of the
| skull They were led to the position by discovering
some slight swelling Of the integuments. They dis
covered fracture somewhere near the ear, runniL
| downward and forward, four inches in length, a
| clean, almost straight fracture. The mans skull
| was split. Removing portion OF the skull, they
found under it very large, tough clot of blood,
| which at once explained the whole difficulty. 1t
was manifest to the surgeons eye and to the skilled
obs rver that only had the skull been frac
ed, but that the artery covered by it had been so
| ruptured as to that outpouring of the blood
between the skull and the membrane which covers
the brain, gIadually bagging down and pressing off
this membrrne until it forced into the parts OF the
brain and produced state of utter insensibility. -
| He partially recovered. Everything that medical
skill could do to restore him resortei to, but so
serious was the injury and great the shock to
the mans system that he fingered for three
| days, and Sunday forenoon, at about Ii o'clock he
died.
1t will be in evidence here by the surgeons that
| this wound upon his head was the cause OF his
| death. careful examination Of his body after his
decease was made; there was other eanse for his
death fonnd. The explanation offered by them, as
matter of scientific truth is, that this artery which
was wounded, lying as it did between the skull and
| the membrane, was as it were, for a while COM
pressed by the natural adhesion of the membrane
though ruptured. The effusion of blood was very
gradual. Under such circumstances and in such a
position that at first it operated with very slight
chanicaI force to press away the membrane and
bear down upon the brain, and this accounts for
his ability to walk and the apparent slghtness OF the
injury his ability to discuss, his ability to give IN
account OF himself, and the gradual approach OF in-
sensibility, to heplessness and falling upon the
floor. 1t viii be Ia evidence to you that he did not
fall from his chair to strike his head, but be
| fell fiat upon his face. .....
Gentlemen, believe have stated substantially
the facts upon which this case will rest and will
call the witnesses upon whom we rely to sustain
enem.
/ EVIDENCE.
Clinton II. Chesley called by the Govern
ment; sworn and testified:
live in this city; business is that of tai
lor; my place of business is 160 Middle street.
| q: Did you know the deceased Patrick Muir
ray? A. did.
@. State whether or not at any time he
worked for you? A. He worked for me Fri
day, the third of September, two weeks ago
last Friday.
| Q. What time of day did he come to work
for you? A. About half-past eight in the
morning; he worked until one O'Clock, or
nearly one, when he went to his dinner; he
got back about quarter past two, and worked
until quarter of six He was sober when he
came in the morning, and he worked steadily
until he went to his dinner; on his return he
was sober, and he worked steadily until he
went to his supper. l did not see him again
until Saturday morning, when saw him in
the station house; he was the same man that
| lay in the station at that time he was in the
room next to the cells, 1 think. He had then
been operated upon by the surgeons.
v. was he conscious and able to recognize
you? A. No, sir.
| Q. Did you recognize him to be the same
man that worked for you the day before. A.
did. That was the last time saw him.
Cross e1dmined-Q. When and where did
you know the deceased? A. He came into my
shop about 10 o'clock Thursday morning. two
weeks ago last Thursday. That is the first
| time ever saw him.
O. Do you know anything of his previous
history or character? A. Not personally.
Frank d. Moore called by Government;
| Sworn, and testified:
l am city engineer of this city.
q. State whether or not at the request ol
the County Attorney you went to the Brad
| ley Hotel, on the corner of India and Com
| mercial streets in this city, and made certain
| measurements. A. did.
Y. Whether or not you made any plan OIL
sketch OF the portions you measured? A.
did; WITNESS produces plan.]
y. what portions have You there made
measurements of and sketched? A. OF the
hall in the second story, showing the doors and
entrances to the roo US and their positions,
width and length of passage ways, exact posi-
ton of stairs, ETC. The plan is made on a cor
rect scalr of Two feet to one inch.
@. Upon which end of the building
is the staircase which is delineated
upon the plan? A. Upon the other side OF
the building from Commercial street, on the
entrance from India street. 1 know the meas
urements to be accurate.
The hour OF adjournment having arrived,
Court adjourned to Tuesday morning at s
o'clock A. M. .
| TUEsDAY-FoRENooN SESSION,
Belizer lie Blanc Called by the State, testi-
fled: The County Attorney putting the ques
lions tor the government and the interpreter,
Joseph ID. Decelle, repeating the questions at
ter the County Attorney in the French Ian
guage to the witness, who responded in the
same tongue, when the interpreter returned
the answers in English, as here giyen.)
| QuestlOn-Where does he reside?
Answer-I reside in Lowell, Mass
| q. Was he in Portland on Thursday, the
Sd K! Of September Yss' ,"o' 7.'.- = q
@. From what place did he 60 to Portland?
A. st. Paul, Canada.
| @. When did he arrive in Port and?
| A. Between four and half-past four on Fri
day.
Q. Who were with him as witnesses?
A. Five came there with him from Canada,
| one man and four girls. .a. lI-
q. at what place in this city did they stop? (?
A. They first landed at the Grand Trunk
depot, passed over the city to the Boston de-
pot, and returned and put up at the Portland
@. Whether or not he stopped at Bradley's
A. don't know the name of the hotel 1
stopped ,, at; ~
Depot.
A. The first house at the corner opposite the
| depot.
@. Whether or not in that house was Muir
ply vs.
| @. What was he doing there?
A. saw him inside the bar.
| u whether or not the witness and his COM
panions engaged lodgings in that house?
| 9; Whether or not he witnessed any trouble
In that house on that Friday evening?
Q. Who were engaged in it? .-.
"A. Two engaged-the man who was here
yesterday lShea) and this man (Murphy.)
=. Was there third person?
| a. There were three men.
y. Who was the third man beside this
man and the one who was here yesterday? ~
A did not know the man.
=. What was that third person doing?
A. All heard him say, in the further end
| of the passage, was, he wanted to see his wife.
| (He understood that.)
Q. How many times did he hear him saw he
wanted to see his wife? '
a. About couple of times,
y. 10 whom did he say that?
A. He said that to the other maj, who xvas
here yesterday NV
| he said it? P"''"9o was NO "A'A
a. Near the farther end
stairs? i"''aeS' 'ioN'
a. Near the farther end from the stairs.
street? s"'' VI
A. Two
y. Where was the witness himself?
A. In the second story.
q. In what part of the passage and how iar
along?
A. About the middle of the passage:
Q. How far was he himself, the witness,
from the man at the time he demanded 10 see
his wife?
A. The witness stated about that distance
from where he asked for his wife?
O. What il anything was the man who ask
ed for his wife doing?
Shepley object to the question involving
an assumption that the man was asking tor
his wife. L don't understand the man that he
was making this remark at all.