Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-15

tion it was the best he ever saw. He should have had more than five dollars day for go- | ing over that miserable swamp, and then go- | ing to a court of justice and telling twelve | Inen it was the incest wood lot he eyer saw. Because gentlemen, you have seen Slt your selves, and there is no use misrepresentlng 1t. | We'll, gentlemen, if that was the only evl- dence, warrantless and evidently gotten up | to manufacture public opinion, could pass | 1t. It is not. The public mind must be fired | up. Public opinion must be controlled. The \ jury must be taken from New Haven county I and come here with prejudiced minds if pos | sible. I shall not travel out of the evidence. | Somebody wrote an article that the prosecu- tion now repudiates, which was sent broad \ cast over the land Hoy the thousand tongues | of the press of the country.
 MT. Waller, interrupting, askedif it was not understood that the bootheel testimony was not to be alluded to.
 Mr. Jones-I have not got to the bootheel I testimony. When get to 1t shall have perfect right to speak about what has taken place in court concerning it.
 MT. Waller-f you go into it we shall. MT. Jones-Oh, have no objection to your going into it as far as do. Somebody wrote ! and published to the world that there had been found in the gullet of that girl piece of steel so small that only the microscope could discover it, and that it exactly fitted @ niche in Hayden's knife. The prosecution re- pudiate the authorship of the article, but it is all the same to me. Somebody wrote 1t and
 wrote it for the press. do not say the pros ecution did it. MT. Hayden didn't write 1t. That's not probable. It was written by vl- ! lain for the purpose of injuring Hayden. The State says it is not responsible. Gentle men, of the jury, you know that the article WAS utterly false. It was the duty ot the prosecution to write an article, over their sig | natures, following on the heels of the hrst branding it as untrue Let the antidote fol-
 low the poison. It gave moral injury, and was sample of the attempts to manufacture | opinion against the accused The man who wrote | that article ought to beg the pardon of AL mighty God upon his pended knees for the \ terrible crime he has committed. He ought to be spit upon and execrated. Mir. Jones now illustrated that where five men band to- gether to take another mans life, they are all in morality and law equally guilty of the crime.
 Theories.
 This case will go down to posterity noted for it's superabundance of theories, s,-some of l which were stilIborn and but few live to this day. The boot heel theory departed life at an early age. Then they had line of sight
 theory; that you couldn't see anywhere near
 that spring from the Hayden house nearer kothan from fourteen feet to forty feet up in
 the air. What became of that theory? You
 went out, gentlemen, and saw for yourselves
 and the line of sight theory disappeared.
 We'll, in the beginning the prosecution had
 theory that Mary Stannard was in the family
 way. They held to that till they found she
 was no more in the family way than Dr. Matthewson was If she had been intimate
 with this accused, it would have shown in
 many ways. Did he ever meet her alone
 No. Did he ever make her present? No. Not particle of evidence to sustain any claim
 of intimacy. They talk of the oyster supper. How natural it is to suppose that he would go
 following right after the girls brother and sister
 and be intimate with her. Not par
 ticle of intimacy is proven; no visits j; | no presents But they must have 8 theory. ' G. kIa+M ha vUn nant, Gentlemen, I tell you that theory was
 not born until after we got through that Madi- l son trial, and the pressure demanded they should ! find something Did they discover that cystic ! tumor when they took out the girls organs ! Professor White looked and Dr. Jewett looked,
 but they saw nothing. True, Dr. White says he saw something that looked like tumor,
 but not word said he about it while he was | on the stand at Madison. Let us look at Dr. i, Jewett's testimony. I read from it that he |, testifes he knew as much about the tumor at
 Madison as he did in this court, and yet he
 said nothing about it at Madison when on the
 stand. And both he and Dr. White swear pos itively ct Madison that the girl was not preg- nant and there was no evidence of it At that time Drs. White and Jewett had not been
 educated up to the cystic tumor theory; that l was an after thought. You know Drs. Bacon, 1 Oarmalt and three other eminent professional , gentlemen who come in here and tell you that , | a little cystic tumor like that would cause no | quote the authorities in the books read now from the Cyclopeodia of the Practice of Medicine
 vol. 10 on the diseases of women, and it says that E under ordinary circumstances tumor will not ' | cause any disturbance. No authority will say i, that a tumor of that size located where 1t , was will ever produce any internal symptoms. | But now let us leave these expert matters. , You'll acknowledge my client is not fool, and want to put case to you. Suppose , this Mary Stannard was perfectly honest, Ihr 4 I--1 L IL mother of an iuegitimate boy. Then suppose , Hayden had been criminally intimate with that [ girl for five months. Suppose Mary thought , she was pregnant and goes down, right through l that hole in the barn, to see MT. Hayden. l She says, "Herbert, I'm in trouble.'' He ! says, ''Are you indeed ?" She says, 'sYes, I'm in the family way.' What's the first question he would ask? He'd say at once, ''Have you passed your monthly periods p
 and she would say, ''Oh, no; that's all right. :" Do you suppose as matter of common sense
 that when the great sign that nature hung
 out told him she wasn't pregnant, he'd run off to Middletown for arsenic or 'quick medi- l cine? ?" It's nonsense.
 II The StudIeY Testimony.
 do not forget the Studley testimony dilu- ted through Root. What Mrs. Studley said is mooted question. Now Justice Wilcox l tells you Mary did not say she was pregnant. , It was offered but ruled out Of course if it was ruled out it could not be testified to. Mary was sent away for some reason. No l matter if she told Mrs. Hayden about it or anybody else, we cannot prove 1t, because it is not of the res gestde. It is competent for the State to prove anything coming from the \ act. The State can use some things We want to ask if they believe that Mary left ) Studley's for good. Do you believe fl? No tice what Edgar Studley said, May must ? boy ''he was the damndest ugliest boy he ever saw" And it is also admitted that he
 did not take Mary's clothing home when he ' | took her homo that Sunday. He did not take
 Mary's trunk nor her clothing. Now if it is true that the girl left Studley's final ly, why was the trunk left behind ? ) Now you see you can't always tell what tree makes the most shingles. or who else had been hanging round the edges. Mrs. Studley did not know what might happen in the fu- ! But leaving that trunk of Mary's behind is significant to me.
 A Request to Charge.
 !. Now, gentlemen, no matter what Edgar or Mrs. Studley said it cannot be used to con- , vict Hayden with this crime. Now ask Your Honors to charge the jury, first. that the testimony of Mrs. Studley, and address
 myself also to you, gentlemen of the jury, as !, detailed by the reporter, Mir Root,
 and the testimony of Susan \ Havley in reference to the statements of Mary as to what Mary believed her condition to be- ] , tion to be. cannot be used adversely to Mr. Hayden, or to show that he committed the crime. You cannot introduce testimony for one purpose and then slop all over the county. (To the Court will give your Honors copy of that
 Hayden's Guilt or Innocence. Now, gentlemen, what evidence has been brought to bear to show guilt in Mr. Hay den2 If evidence bearing on the guilt of Hayden is limited to these declarations, these declarations must be limited to where they ! belong. Has there been anything like evil ! dence connecting him with the crime? Is there any sort of intimacy shown between
 him and the girl? Does any one claim that in
 New Haven county man cannot go into his house and put his young ones to bed without
 having improper intimacy with his servant girl charged against him; or his wife cannot go out to tea or her husband cannot enter his own house without being charged with i'm proper hberties2 Has there been any ill- feeling shown toward the girl2 Was he seen