Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-07
LOCAL NEWS.
tFor other Local News see secondPage,l
r.,,,,,,,,-,,,, vDo,, srooNn pAer. i

resort to cirth to help themselves out of the muddle The court sustained the view of the there, dismissing the witness without cross examination.
 Agreeing IO Dfspenaing with Certain
 Evidence.
 Mrs Luzerne Stevens was called for, by Mir. Harrison. She took the stand-R lady of about 30 or 35, dressed iu black. She was present, - she said-in answer to MT. Harrison-at the disrobing of Mary Stannard's body. MT. liar rison said the purpose with this witness was to show the quantity of blood. Mir. Waller said also that this witness evidence was to re- but the claim of the defense that the murder was committed elsewhere aud the body carried to the spot where found. It was to be shown by Mrs. Stevens who was one of those present at the disrobing, that the clothes were wet with rain, showing that the body had lain out on the ground during the shower. Had the cruel murder been committed by Ben Stevens or MT. Stannard, as the defense would lnti- mate and committed at the Stannard house, the body might not have been carried up to the spot till after the shower. MT. Watrous was disiuclined to think that any such tender regard for the dead body, as ironically lm- puted by the State, would have filled the hearts of whoever committed the homicide. The defense would make no claim that the body was not wet This disposed of this matter.
 A Minute Point.
 saw Mr. George Davis on the day before the homicide. He drove up to MT. Hayden's house, but did not go in. He drove up the street. and soon after saw him going across the lots near Nehemiah Burr's going in the di- rection of the Stannard house. MT. Harrison in explanation to Mir. Watrous said the object was to show that whereas MT. Hayden said he had his interview with Mir. Davis in the house it was at the door instead. Mir. Watrous said, 'sIa that all {; then we won't have any waste of time on that"
 Laughter i'm the Court.
 Mrs. Georgie A. Miller, of Middletown, South Farms, daughter of Mrs. Ward-I was present at my mothers house in North Guli- ford when Perry and Buell. called upon my mother with reference to her having seen man crossing the road on the day of the hon. icide. She told them she did not know where the spring was, and could not answer them definitely until she knew where the spring was. Yes, she was asked if she knew 1t was man.. She said yes, if she saw anything with brooches on she knew it was man. Roar of merriment.) The defense waived cross examining this witness also.
 OdeIl Stevens.
 Odell Stevens recalled-I was up at the homicide the morning after the murder and saw MT. Hayden there. We came away about eleven o'clock. Myself, Austin Stevens and Mir. Hayden wanted to go to the Stannard house. but none of us knew the way there except MT. Hayden. who led the way. [The prisoner had helped carry the body over the road the night before. No cross-sxsmina ton.
 The Tin Pail.
 MT. Charles Stannard, father of the mur dered girl, recalled. He was shown the tin pail Mary took to the spring just before her death, aza3 asked if that wasIthe identical pail. He bowed his head in assent and waited, evi dently expecting more questions, and seemed taken by surprise when informed by MT. Wal Ter that that was all.
 Recess here intervened.
 Dr. P. A. Jevvett-The Obstetrics of the
 Cases
 Dr. P. A. Jewett recalled. MT. Waller said the State proposed to call attention only to the medical authorities in support of the claim by the State that Mary thought she was in the family way, and that a cystic tumor might have accounted for her impression on that point. It was only intended to lay in authorities. Mir. Watrous objected to the procedure as irrelevant Supplementary in formation was uncalled for. Dr. Jewett was diligent and studous, and with such diligence as competent mind would apply to the wide range of medical literature for the purpose in view, no doubt his efforts had been rewarded. The fact that the doctors for the defense did antagon1ze the witness was not a call for re- buttal testimony. Drs. Hubbard, Bacon and Gibbon. Ind controverted the witness. No doubt with the exhaustion of midnight oil in investigations made, some authorities had been found.
 Mir. Waller replied that the defense has set forth that no authorities sustained the views as 10 the effect of cystic tumors upon the fe- male mind To rebut this the State had provided through the witness wide range of authoritie ies-a library of books-to set back the medical experts who had appeared for the defense. [Mr. Watrous stood waiting to re- ply as MT. Waller was talking. MT. Waller, perceiving this, exhibited the spirit of ''en- tente cordiale' prevailing between the antag- onistic counsel, with a deferential and humor- ous appeal to tarry a moment.
 Mr. Watrous. his friend having concluded, merely added that the State had raised the point, not the defense, snd stood awaiting the decree.
 Hand1erchfefs Put By.
 The court, Judge Park speaking, with deprecatory tone, as though recalling the inn port of the well known phrase, tempus fugit, said the court was inclined to omit the books. This ended the inquiry on this topic, and relieved the ladies present, and they put by the handkerchiefs gracefully, which they had prepared to put up to their faces, antici- pating some very interesting testimony on delicate subjects. Dr. Jewett supplies us with list of the authorities intended to be offered by the State, viz:
 Menstl uaiion in Pregnancy-mensru1 hnid in blood Authorities, Leyticus, chap: 18th, 19.h. 70 and 30. Bsndelocques Midwifery, 1907, D. iss. Rewees' Diseases of Females, 1885, PIP. 172 and ITS. xifery, ls4s, P. lso Msigs' Diseases of Females, 1s4s P ASA oaznesns MdTfsry % 1sso P 1sl Payfars. 1876, p. 12s. Lawson Tait, p. 15s, 1879. in e carly Stoge OF the or he b ginning of the tumor. See Washington L. Attee on Pssee TSmr sns p s pp 90 snd m ward John Tilt, 1862, pp: 335, 3S6 and 3S7. Isaac ssa ' Thomas A. H Gmets 1s7s D. 77o. I.Srente p Tait, 1878, p. 154 The Madison Trial-StenORraPhic
 Notes Called Ius John J. Hill, the stenographer at the Madi- son trial, and now studying theology, was sworn. He said in reply to Mir. Harrison that | Mir. Hayden at that trial, on being asked the l question whether he had told any one at Stan ! nards that day (the day of the homicide) that | he had been to Middletown, replied that he | didn't recollect that he had. I think he was | asked if he told anybody of having been to | Middetown. His reply, I am almost posi- | tive, was that be didn't recollect that he had | told anybody so (This was witness memory | on the subject as refreshed by his notes, I | think he was asked what he did after getting | out of his carriage. I think he replied that | he asked for a drink of water.
 Mir. Jones (rapidly) wait mo- | mentl This doesn't contradict anybody. MT. ! Harrison said it was to contradict Hayden on | a certain point. MT. Jones said: We'll, con- l fine him to that point It is not right to go all | nver fha OTnuT6 nuain .e Witness, further-I think he said that he | told no one at Stannard's that he had been to | Middletown. CWitness was now asked to re- fer to his notes by MT. Harrison.) Arguments About . Certain Class of |
 Admissible Evidence. MT. Waller, addressing the court, said it | was now proposed to show that these notes | would substantiate what witness had told from | recollection, and to have it borne in mind that | the notes were unbiased, but taken by wit l ness in the direct line of duty, which was to l furnish an accurate report. The memoran- s7,rrn itself d0ea mi O0 fo fhA iurv Tha ac-