The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-11-19
THE LONG STRUGGLE.
Seventh Week Of Hay
denis Trial.
AN EFFORT TO PROVE A MOTIVE.
Investigating the Origin OF the
Barn" Arsenic.

The trial Of the Rev. Herbert H. HAYDEN entered
upon it, seventh week to-day. month and . half
had been spent by the State in putting in evidence
mainly OF the expert character, on arsenic blood
stains and kindred matters. Some more is to come
in regard the nail marks discovered ON the cheek
of the murdered girl This will occupy several days.
but beyond this feature the remaining evidence that
the State has secured bears largely upon
preceding the tragedy and the relations which ex-
listed between Hayden and the GIRL
The effect OF the expert testimony upon the minds
of the jury has been very materially diminished by
the searching cross-examinations to which the wit
nesses were subjected by the defence Mr. Watrous
senior counsel for Hayden. has conducted this part
OF the case with great ability and the knowledge Of
the delicate scientific distinctions involved indicates
that he had prepared himself for the task.
THE DARN ARSENIC MYSTERY
strange story connected with the testimony on
the subject of arsenic comes from Hartford. The
State has claimed that the found in Haydens
barn was not the arsenic he purchased In Middle
town on the day Of the murder. but a package
fraudulently placed there by some friend after his
arrest. and after it known that the body of the
girl was to be examined for poison. The State has
been endeavoring to ascertain where this ''barn'
arsenic. it has been termed the trial. was pur.
chased. Professor Dana. who examined samples of
arsenic purchased In New Haven. Meriden Hartford
and other places and compared then, with the
several arsencs notable in the CASE found that
Of the Hartford arsenic resembled closely that found
in the barn. man was sent to Hartford and was
informed by clerk at one of the drug stores that
about the time Of the finding of the arsenic in the
barn purchase had been made by o young man
who is believed to have had some relations with
Hayden's side of the case. The clerk, so tho
story goes, could only remember that he had heard
that the purchaser was employed in Of the in.
uo<y;o x1~o
States representative no visited the offices the
Etna and Connecticut Mutual Insurance companies,
but could not identify any one of the clerks at
either as the man. Several law Offices visited
and in one Of them he finally identified the pur-
chaser. This is the story told. but on the other
side the counsel for the defence pronounced the al
legged discovery and identification wholly worthless
and stgmatize in sharp terms the effort cast sus
picion upon innocent parties One Of the counsel
positively denies that the alleged purchaser who is
relative. ever had anything to do with the or
purchased any arsenic ut any time in his life.
1t is rumored that the defence will endeavor to
destroy the effect of Professor Danas Identification
of the several arsenics in this by their crystals
&C.. by bringing forward men familiar with arsenic
grinding, who will swear that there is marked
uniformity in the products of the mills
The testimony this forenoon rather uninter-
esting but later In the day the State got around
occurrences the day Of the murder. and the evil
dence received close attention from the spectators
who crowded the court room. Late In the afternoon
spicy legal tilt occurred on the question Of the
admissibility of some evidence which 10 of grave
Importance to the State.
Soon after the close OF the examination Of Mr.. de
Silva. photographer. the State entered upon diff
cult feature Of its case-the proving Of the motive
which tempted Hayden to his crime At the rst trial
Mrs studley testified that Mary Stannard told her
lint Havd WA ia nor nj hpr Mra
Studley died few weeks ago. The State wished to
get her evidence before the jury Frank D. Root as
of the first trial. reported Mrs. studleys testimony
very fully. and was now called to testify as to the
substance OF that testimony.
''Can you give ne the exact wordsy'
No. SIR but can give very fully the substance Of
her statements"
Mr.. Jones-I object.
A LEGAL CONTROVERSY
the declarations Of Mary Standard as to her con-
diton just prior to the murder
MR. b claim in shs rss o that the
at all it must be her exact words But further. we
claim that If Mrs studley was present herself her
| be received because 1t Is not q part OF the
aeste. Mrs. Studey's statement not given at
trial. but at preliminary hearing before justice
a question of the commitment Of Mr.. Hayden for
trial. The chief objection he said. to the testimony
OF the witness to the substance Of Mrs. Studeys
testimony is supported. among others, by two de-
cision-viz.. Commonwealth VS. Richards. 18th Pick.
ering, p. 434; Warren vs.. Nichols, 9Th Metcalf p.
| 26l. These literally quoted from.
Mr. Waller. in support Of the admissibility Of the
| vs.. Hooker. Ninteenth Vermont Reports, p. $50;
Kendrick the State Tenth Tennessee; Forty-ntth
@ sn Of s and osher casss in the rh
teenth Vermont Reports. Scventy-third Pennsylvania
Espor Alabama saS nSs Report
| gest p. l34 Eighth Wallace Reports, D. 397; First
Wharton Evidence. secs: III. $50 and 5l4; Twenty
second New Hampshire Reports. PIP. 372. 377 and
$40. Mr.. Waller quoted very fully from these au-
,horities. His associate: Judge Harrison. handed
state. it may be said. has made close inyastiss-
Its Importance is sef-evident for IL 1qses better
than any other that IL available Y shoh Hayden
Mr.. watrous claimed that the authorities quoted
referred to testimony In second trial as to what
did not give her testimony at trial, but an in
quisitorial examination. "And cannot" said Mr..
Watrous. take Mr. Roots memory Of what Mrs:
| what she meant given to the jury after passing
through the intellectual apparatus Of the Witness"
MIR. Waller read from an authority showing that
1t was suspicious thing for witness to attempt to
| give the precise words Of another and hence the
adoption of the rule that the substance OF a
sation statement should be accepted as better
evidence. Mr.. Waller then quoted from McLean's
| named
Mr.. watrous argued long and earnestly In support
of his claim that the evidence could not be received
second hand and reviewing the authorities cited by
the State. claimed that they not decisive
appeared nor they on eases features
siuilar to those of this case The witness, as news
| paper reporter, would look for the sensational
features of Mrs. Studley's testimony and overlook
many important minor points, which, although Of
real interest. would be discarded by him rs prosy,
THE RULING.
After consultation between the Judges Judge San
ford announced the ruling Of the Court substan-
TALLY as follows: I'll understand that the objections
threefold. First thcre is the general objection
that IL Mrs Studey alive she could testify to
the declarations OF Mary Stannard because they do
not form part of the gesfd. On this point we
cannot give an intelligent ruling. It has not been
| argued"
| Mr. Waller unterruptIng)-No sir. we agreed to
! pass this point.
Judge Sanford--Yes; we understood. The Sec
ond objection is that the statements wero not made
In the progress OF any trial II to us that the
hearing before the magistrate was, for all purposes
trial He had II ia his power to discharge the
| prisoner or hold him for higher court. Hence 1t
IL difficult to whore there is difference between
this and whore the case IL before magistrate having
nns Jurisdiction and being able to place bar TO