The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-03

The Mary Mohrnnn Murder = Trial of John
Hanlop-The ConfessiOn-FOurth Day.
oOurii Of 0ver and TerTtiacr Judges Lud'Ow and


Cot"i Of 0yer and TerTttler--|"ogeS L"d'o" and
Peirce.
After the close OF our report last evening the
Commonwealth examined some five or six wit
nesses who described the finding OF the body OF the
child Mary Mohrman on the morning of Tuesday,
September s, 1865, lying in a small pond in a lot at
sixth street and Susquehanna avenue Mrs.
Emory was crossing the lot at O'Clock In the
naed nnmber "f the s0SSrS 'Ts be boS was
cleansed OF mud and blood, wrapped in a blanket,
and taken In wagon to the Nineteenth Ward Sta
The courtroom was not so crowded this morning,
and after the jurors not empanelled in this case
were discharged, the investigation was resumed
George Quaster kworn-ln the month Of Septem-
her, 1865 lived in Rees street, above Susquehanaa
avenue there was vacant lot opposite to my house
at that tme remember the finding of the body of
Mary Mohrman; crossed the lot that morning
yards OF the pond; the body Of the child was not
lying there at that hour did not hear of the hnd-
ing OF the body until dinner-tme that day.
Michael Dunn, the prisoner to whom Hanon was
said to have confessed, was called to the stand
Mr. Hagert ,s addressed t the Court, sayieg; IIour
deliver to the witness pardon under the great seal
of the Commonwea for 0nenses OF which he was
convicted upon bills Nos. "a and 261, August ses-
sions, $685."
The pardon was then read by the witness and
Mr. 0'Neill of counsel for the defense, having in
spected the pardon and the records of the Court OBJ
jected to the swearing of the offered witness. He
said the man appeared upon the stand infamous
under the conviction OF felony, and the Common
wealth proposed remove that obstacle by pro1uc-
ing pardon in the records Of the Court the
described in the Indictment on which this pardon
was issued is named Michael Dunn alias Edwards;
whereas the person pardoned was described in tie
pardon simply as Michael Dunn, and there was
nothing to show that the person pardoned and the
person indicted were the same.
Mr. Bagert said the objection came in advance OF
the proper point; be now called Michael Dunn as
witness, and before his examination could be eX-
cluded he must be shown to be disqualified.
The Court said that when the witness pro-
duced would lie upon the obecting party to prove
his disqualification
The witness being called, the defense made the
formal objection that he was disqualified by reason
of conviction Of felony, and proceeded to proof on
the point
SOD, sworn-1 know Michael Dunn, the man here;
he is prisoners has been in prison since August l5
sent to prison. Commitment produced)
Jeseph Cation sworn-I am deputy clerk OF this
court hold the record OF this court ar t In my hand
Michael Dunn (Mr, Cation read the record,
which set for forth l., that Dunn, alias ~, Edwards,
was indicted with Ellen Dunn and Mary Thompson
for larceny in August, 1865 pleaded guilty, and was
sentenced to two years Imprisonment; and then
again the same month he was convicted of larceny
and sentenced to additional years Imprisonment
These records are each dated August 10, 1865.
in August 1868, was an of1icer OF the court was
present at the trials had upon these indictments;
Identify this man as the Michael Dunn then tried
Michael Dunn-I have received pardon for the
| onenses of which was convicted in august 1853:
accept it. (The pardon was offered in evidence and
read by Mr.. Hagert, in rebuttal of the proof OF
The witness was then regularly offered.
| Counsel for the defense objected to his examlna-
on s & on a the r Of S
| sentence to an imprisonment OF two years so de-
| scribed him; and, secondly, because ne was con-
| vcted of two o1enses and pardoned for only one.
Judge Ludlow said-It appearing to the Court by
evidence that Michael Dunn is the identical person
who is held in custody bY virtue OF the commitment
of August IS, 1865 and that the person has
ceived the pardon Of the Governor for both ofenses
we overrue the objection, and direct the witness to
Michael Dunn was then sworn.
at the instance OF the prisoners counsel, M r.
Hagart stated his offer.
Dunn then said-Since August, 1918, have lived
| in the County Prison; know the defendant Han
lon have known him since December 29th, 1863;
| have known him since then; on that day he came
| into my cell; it was on wednesday; made his
acquaintance In nv CELL he occupied the cell with
me- working with me IN the daytime from Il O'Clock
the un m lTf IN t9e re 10 b
with up to March /, 1870; during the time he was
in my cell had conversations with him frequently.
Question by Mr.. Hagert-In any OF these CONVEX
sations you had with The prisoner did he make any
| statement TO you with reference to the killing OF
| Mary Mohrman? 4? Answer. Yes sir.
@. Before he made these statements to you, any
of them, did you use any threat or make any promise
to induce him to make such statements? A No, sir.
| oss-examined-Before was convicted did not
| know John Hanlon / knew nothing OF him before /
sentenced to prison; never heard OF him till he
| came into my cell never knew of Mary Mohr-
| mans death until he told me; before l was SEN
fenced to prison never stad in the city more than
| week at time, and then lived in Front street;
never came to the city more than five times In my
life resided here but five times and was convicted
of two arcenes; lived when here at No. 1888 South
| Front street; do not mean that lived on the
water wharf; lived at No 23S three times out Of
five; those three times were the beginning of 1867,
| the end of 1867, and the beginning Of 1868.
Mr.. Hagert objected to this cross examination,
because this evidence was directed to the Court in
| order to lay the ground for the admission OF this
mans testimony, and confined simply to the point OF
| what occurred In prison; and the mans previous
| history was not involved or OF Importance now,
| though hereafter it might be pertinent
Counsel for the prisoner answered that as this did
address itself to the Court he thouf ht the judicial
discretion should be exerted, nay strained in favor
of the life of the citizen, and where the witness
| thief and feon, the last man on earth to be
trusted with anything, the Court should allow the
broadcast liberty In ascertainng his fitness testify.
| Mr Tagert replied that this was not now a ques-
ton OF the credibilty Of the witness, but simply
| whether he used any improper influences upon the
accused TO induce him TO make his statements. Al
| another stage OF the proceedings the question OF
credibity would arise, and then the defense could
elicit all the information concerning the man that
| they were now asking him.
Judge Ludow-The question that now presents
Itself Is only as to the preliminary examination OF
the Witness and while, strictly speaking, these ques-
uons nay be irrelevant, yet in case so grave and
ofsuch magnitude, we are disposed TO deal Literally
and allow the prisoner every advantage that is CON
sonant with justice and the law OF the land, and
permit these questions to be asked, relying upon
counsel not TO extend them beyond certain limit.
The witness resumed-Before came here lived
| in New York, in Sing Sing Prison; was convicted
ofstore robbery, in the day time and was not par
| doned.
Counsel for the prisoner moved the court now Il
note an objection TO the examination OF the wit
ness, because, by this last answer, he was made
infamous by conviction in New York, of which
The Court said it would be improper to sustair
the objection at this stage OF the proceeding because
the Commonwealth had right 10 crosse xamine the
witness, and TO act ntelligently, the Court should
be further informed as TO the facts OF the cOnvic
ton; for the present, therefore, the objection was
oyerruied, reseryipg nnal decision upon 1t here
after and allowing counsel for the prisoner to re
Dunn resumed-I was in New YorE