Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-07
The Hayden Case.

OfTeStfmOnY-The he Rebuttat Evidence substantially yCi0sed-BenJanin Stew ems to Reappcar-The Remaining Business-Large Audiences-The :. Counsel.
 This is the fourteenth week of the trial and promises to be the final one as regards the evidence The State announced late yester- day afternoon that it rested on the rebuttal, reservlng the right to re-introduce Benjamin Stevens for some testimony on the black oak club subject As he was not feeling well enough, he was not brought on yesterday. He remains at the hospital. If better be will come on the stand to-day. Now comes the sur-rebutting evidence, the duration of which is estimated from one day to three. Follow ing come the arguments. The testimony yes- terdsy was varied and the audiences large, including several prominent men from other sections.
 The fourteenth week of the great Hayden trial began yesterday morning. The court opened at I0:1O o'clock when, the hearing in rebuttal was resumed.
 The first witness called was Andrew Haz- lett, whom the Stase desired to put on for the purpose of showing with certain papers that his name had always been called Hazlett Mir. Harrison said they had deed, 8 bill, dis charge papers from the army and other pa pers showing that his name had not been written in any other way than Hazlett. MT. Jones objected on the ground that 1t was not properly in rebuttal of anything that had been introduced by the defense. The Chief Justice thought the evidence was proper, but whether the documents pro- posed to be introduced were admissible was question.
 MT. Watrous said that he did not ses how certain papers could be put in evidence to ! contradict his client. Was it legitimate evil dence to introduce papers which may have | been written for purpose Judge Park said the question was, by what I name was this man known in the communt- | ty. Is seemed to the court that it was proper | for the witness to show by what name he called himself, and this he understood to be ! the purpose in the introduction of these pa | pers.
 Mr. Harrison-Did you have dealings with David Hubbard, of Durham, Sept. 9th, 1873.
 Witness-I did. bought some land of | him and he gave me deed. gave my name then as Hazlett and it is so written on this deed. When was made Q citizen also gave | my name as Andrew Hazlett. was also dis charged from the army as Hazlett. Various other papers of similar character and show ing the same thing were also produced. ' lEs Hayden call you?
 Witness-I never knew him to call me anything.
 Cross examination by MT. Watrous.
 MT. Watrous-How did Coleman Clark spell your name on September 9th, 1873?
 Witness-I don't know. I know how l | spelled it.
 MT. Watrous-Who wrote this receipt of Henry Davis which is written Hazelton?
 Witness-Mr. Clark, I suppose.
 MT. Watrous-Did you spell your name to MT. Isaac Arnold in June, 1878?
 Witness-No, sir.
 Mir. Watrous-It is spelled with two e's and l two Us is it not?
 Witness-I suppose so.-
 The papers were passed to the jury for ex- animation.
 Mr. Watrous-Have you got any more pa pers with you in which your name is spelled?
 Witness-I don't know.
 MT. Watrous-Did you decd away your Dur ham land7
 Witness-Yes, sir. deeded 1t to Simeon Burr of Haddam. signed the deed myself. George A. Stevens was called. He said he went to Middletown to see Colegrove on Octo ber 18th, 1878. While there saw General Vii. | cox.
 MT. watrous said if this witness was to sup port Wilcox in his statement regarding his search for arsenic, he should object, as it dic not rebut anything that had been introduced by the defense.
 Mir. Harrison said a number of witnesses had been introduced to discredit the testimony of Nr. Wilcox and they introduced this evidence to sustain him.
 MT. Waller said that they proposed to show that this story was not an invention of Will cox's made for the purposes of this trial, but 1 within one month after making the search, he told parties the story of his search substantial. ly as he told it in the court. MT. Waller quoted authorities to show that the admission of such evidence was legitimate. MT. Watrous combated the argument of Mr. Waller on the ground that there was no such rule as he claimed. He said that when witness for the State was knocked down by the defense, they had no right as they claim ed to prop him up by other witnesses at any stage of the proceeding. He said there was no reason why Wilcox should have retained he had told in court
 Mir, Waller earnestly replied in support o1 the truthfulness of Wilcoxs testimony. h conclusion he said that as the defense admit ted that Wilcox may have told the witness on the stand of his search, month after he had made it, he would withdraw the witness Sheriff Stevens was then excused.
 Sheriff Hull was next called and produced the tin pail said to be the one that Mary Stan. nard took to the spring for water. Witness said he obtained the pail from Stannard's house in the spring of 1879. It had not been out of his possession since.
 On the cross examination witness stated that he obtained the pail at Charles Stannard's and from him.
 John Patten was next called. He said he lived in Durham and was the father of Mrs. Frazer. Was with her when the knife was found, six weeks after the homicide.
 Mir. Harrison-Did you see any evidence about the place of food having been recently eaten at the point where the knife was found?
 MT. Watrous objected to the question. 1u60 m kr show that the knife came where it was found after the 3rd of September was important, but otherwise not.
 Witness continued-I saw some tin boxes where people had apparently had lunch, near where the knife was found. They were like sardne boxes.
 On the cross-examination by MT. Watrous, witness stated that it was not more than rod from where he saw the boxes to where the knife was found. Said he did not see the knife until after it was picked up. He was at the right hand side of his daughter when the knife was picked up.
 MT. Watrous-Be good enough to tell us ex- actly where the knife was found.
 Witness-It was found about thres feet i from the trunk of little cedar tree. The l tree was eight or ten feet high. It was on l the right hand side of the path as we were go- 1 ing toward the Stannard house. I saw the knife before it was picked up. A recess was ordered at this point, which l continued for forty minutes.
 After recess John Bradley was called and in | reply to Mir. Harrison testified as follows i I live in North Guilford I recognize the clock shown me and formerly had it in my possession.
 MT. Harrison-Did you exchange this clock with anybody.
 i Objected to by MT. Jones and objection i sustained.
 l Edward Stevens was next called. Said he 1 lived in Madison and was one of the coroners i jury. He said MT. Hayden testified that he went to his wood lot on the day of the mur- ] der. right after dinner. No cross ss-examination. | Edwin J. Black was next called. Said he l lived in Durham. He was in Rockland at an l oyster supper in March. Did not recollect l the date. He first went to Silas Y. Ives house 1 and remained there from one hour to an hour and half. Got there between eight and o'clock. Went from there to the parsonage, ] arriving about 10 o'clock. Had supper in about twenty or thirty minutes after he got there. Did not know who the parties were 1 that collected the tickets. Did not see MT. Havlien after he got into the house When