The New York herald., 1879-11-22
Mr. HAYDEN'S TRIAL:
Evidence Disclosed by Mary
Stannard's Dress.
MEDLEY OF TESTIMONY,
Action of the Accused at the
Coroner's Inquest.
NEW HAVEN. Conn.,. Nov. 2l, 1879.

The testimony in the Hayden trial deepens in in
terest. The State has nearly concluded it's expert
evidence and the witnesses who have been called
for several days past have told stories bearing
closely upon the actual events of the trag-
edy. lady who resided opposite the house
of the accused clergyman told to-day OF
frequent visits of Mary stannard the day
before the murder and related tho discovery
in the pocket of the girl. after her death. of an
article having a peculiar significance. The testi-
mony of Hayden before the Coroners inquest
related this afternoon and of great interest
gave his story before suspicion fairly directed
against him. The comment made Hsyden's
smile. observed when old Mr. stannard was weep
ing yesterday whom relating the finding Of Mary's
corpse has greatly annoyed the accused. He says
that il any change OF countenance was noticeable ut
the time. it due to remark of his wife, who
sat beside him. subject not connected with the
trial.
TESTIMONY MRS. STEVENS. 81
The first witness called this morning was Mrs.
Luzerne Stevens. who at the time OF the tragedy
resided at Rockland. Immediately opposite Mr..
Hayden's house. She is young woman with sharp
black eyes, and entirely selfpossessed. She tes
ifed that on the morning Of the day before the
der she saw Mary Stannard at Mr.. Hayden's house
about eight o'clock. and again three hours later.
In the afternoon she made third visit to the
of the State in putting in this testimony was to
show that Mary called to Hayden at three differ
ent times the day before the tragedy to confer
with him about her condition.
Continuing, Mrs. Stevens said she saw Hayden
when he drove away to Middletown the next morn
ing and again when he returned The third
time in the afternoon. about four o'clock. He
was in his potato patch. aud there was nothing
usual in the appearance of his clothing On this
day Mary Stannard came twice to Hayden's house
during the forenoon. After the tragedy witness
went to Marys house. and during the night assisted
in removing the blood-staned clothing and placing
upon the body other garments. Witness took
charge Of Mary's clothing. and has since kept it.
The garments were Of the plainest character. the
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
'What in the pocket?"
Mr.. Watrous-We object,
Judge Harrison thereupon dropped the question
for the time and said the State offered the dress and
chemise to show the character of the blood stains,
and as showing that the wound must have been in
ficted when the girl was lying in tho position in
which the body was found
Mr.. Watrous-Is the clothing in the same condition
1.-THE dress has been stepped in water, but blood
stains yet remain, replied Mr.. Wsllers
the
Of the blood STAINS By witnesses who saw the corpse
awe wanted to put in the dress. as we had appre-
hended that the defence would endeavor to show
that the blood stains were different from the de-
1--WE hadn't the remotest idea of doing sc" replied
Mr.. Watrous.
with the mysterious blood stained knife which the
defence has introduced into this case--that knife
about"
eyes, and the dress can follow your arsenical
crystals & up into to the the air. naughter;l
legged that the object Of this whole line Of inquiry
was to bring out the contents of the pocket. He
objected to anything OF the kind.
According to the testimony at the first trial the ar
ticles found in the pocket were handkerchief and
clusivey. The claim of the State is that this was
taken by the girl with her in Of the promise by
Hayden that "quick medicine was to be furnished
Mr.. Waller argued in favor of the admissibility OF
the evidence and Mr.. Wstrous that testimony as to
the contents of the pocket wholly irrelevant, in
that they bore relation to the Of the murder
Chief Justice Park-We think that whatever the
girl had on her person ut the time Of the homicide
Mr.. ws.rous-You will please note our exceptions.
myself examined her pocket ara found q hand
kerchef. folded towel and three or four small
ana contents Of the pocket were produced and ex.
amined by COUNSEL upon the bosom of her dress
mere three pins. including one large safety pin.
the face. neck. breast and back.
Ibid you know about Msry's face being poisoned
with ivy o few months before her deathY'
Eyes, and 1t covered with solid eruptions. but
no marks were visible just before her death. met
her frequently and conversed with her.
The point Of this that the State believed that
the defence would claim that this poisoning ac-
counted for tho marks found Mary's cheek after
DEATH and which the State alleges made by the
nails OF Hayden's brogan
CRoss-ExAMINATIoN.
On cross-examination Mr.. Jones first touched on
this point ana asked whether the witness had spoken
to Mary for several weeks before her death. Mr..
Waller objected to the question covering the in
timacy and Mr. Jones changed 1t to draw
merely the fact whether the Witness had seen her
close by. Mrs. Stevens replied that Mary called at
her house on an errand three weeks before her
death and marks Of the poisoning then
visible. Witness continued 1.-THE towel 10 not
actly in the condition it when first saw 1t.
Some pieces appear to have been cut out the
edge Mary had for long time prior to the tragedy
been o frequent visitor ut Mr. Haydsns house."
The State having drawn from the witness testi-
mony calculated to lead the jury infer that the
day CMonday) preceding the tragedy Mary went to
Hayden's house each time Purposeiy to soc him. the
defence proceeded to destroy this. The ques-
tion was asked whether the witness knew
when Mr.. Hayden usually returned from South
Madison, where he preached Sundays. The fact is
that he generally returned Monday forenoons. and
the State therefore, had sought to give the impress
sion that Mary, knowing this had gone to his house
that forenoon. The State objected to drawing any