Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-10

rcoNT1NuED FROM SECOND PAGE. body else got in the buggy with him. The conversation took place after the stranger got in the buggy with Bartlett.
 MT. Watrous asked witness to repeat what Bartlett said.
 Witness repeated, making some changes in the phraseolcgy.
 MT. Watrous-What did you understand by the last part of BartletPs remarks when he said he would have done the same thing If she had gone back on him, or any other damned woman?
 A. I don't know.
 MT. Waller said the State now proposed to put on two CT three witnesses to show that the Rev. Mir Eldridge told what he testified to as to his conversation with Mir. Hayden, be- fore he had talked with Mrs. Hayden. Mir. Waller said if witness was impeached evil dence could be introduced to show that he had stated to three or four different parties the same as he had testified to on the stand. He said they ought to be permitted to show that Mr. Eldridge's conversation was had with MT. Hayden about the physical condition of Mary previous to the time when Mrs. Hayden says she had similar conversation with MT. Eldridge.
 MT. Watrcus said there had been no pur- pose on the part of the defense to attack the capability of Mir. Eldridge as a witness. We believe he was mistaken as to the source of his information as coming from MT. Hayden instead of Mrs. Hayden. Mrs. Eldrid8e says his recollection is dim as to the conversation he had with MT. and Mrs. Hayden. If this was so and his evidence had been weakened, was it any reason that the State should be permitted to bring in witnesses to brace up his evidence, when his truthfulness had not been attacked? If so he could not see where the end would be.
 MT. Waller replied. He insisted that it was within the rules to introduce testimony to meet the statement made by Mrs. Hayden. He said the State desired to show that Mir. Eldridge told what MT. Hayden said about the girls condition before this Friday when Mrs. Hayden says she had this conversation with Mir. Ed ridge.
 MT. Watrous read from the evidence of Mir. Eldridge to show that the witness was not pos itive as to his conversation had with Mrs. Hayden. He then replied at length to the arguments of MT. Waller, contendfpg that the introduction of this testimony was not accord ing to the rules.
 The court ordered recess at this point.
 After recess the court gave it's opinion on the question of evidence sought to be intro duced by Mir. Waller.
 Chief Justice Park said that Mir. Eldridge had testified that he had certain conversa- tion with MT. Hayden on Wednesday. The defense says that he had similar conversation with Mrs Hayden on Friday and that he is mistaken es to the source of his information. Now the State desire to show that he told others before Friday what Mir. Hayden told him in order to strengthen the evil dence of MT. Eldridge. For this purpose they thought it was proper.
 Leverett M. Leach was called and in reply to MT. Waller testified as follows: know Rev. MT. EIdridge. I saw him on the week of the homicide in Middlefeld at the parson- age. Think it was previous to 9 o'clock. Think the day of the week was Friday, but cannot tell positively. Have no doubt but that it was the morning of MT. Hsyden's ar- rest. Should say that heard of his arrest about 7:30 o'clock in the morning.
 MT. WaIler-Did MT. Eldridge at the time you have mentioned say anything about a conversation had with MT. Hayden about any woman's physical condition2 ?
 A. He said something to the effect that Mir. Hayden had told him something about Mary Stannard's physical condition.
 Crossexamination by Mir. Watrcus.
 Mir. Watrous-Of course you know about who MT. Eldridge had talked with on the sub ject before you?
 A. No, sir.
 o. In that interview do you know,,whsth- CT Mrs Hayden was spoken of2
 A. don't remember that she was. We may have spoken of her afflictions. I would not swear that we did not speak of her in
 o. Did you talk with Dr. Matthewson about this subject before you talked with MT. Eldridge?
 A. Think very likely did.
 Mrs. Esther R. Eldridge was next called She said she was the wife of Mir. Eldridge, the minister. I talked with Mir. Eldridge th' evening aftsr the homicide, about what Mir Hayden told him. He told me that MT. Hay den saidI that he knew of the physical condi- tion of Mary Stannard the month before, as he had learned it from his wife.
 There was no cross examination of this wit ness.
 Munroe Burr wes next called.
 MT. Waller stated to the court that the ob ject of bringing this witness was to show tha there was stick up in the woods that haC been used to stir up the pool of blood where the body was found. The defense had at tempted to bring bloody stick into the case and they desired to show that such 8 stici was found and used and was generally knowr in the neighborhood, but no one ever attempt ed to connect it with the murder.
 Mir. Watrous said it was obvious that th State intended to bring in this evidence t sustain the testimony of Ben Stevens. this was the case it was manifestly improper He said Benjamin Stevens WAS asked if h. knew anything about the taking of of Mar, Stannard. The defense asked him if he dit not tell Atwen and Telmadge that he knev of a certain stick or club that had been fount with blood aud hair upon it. He replied no The defense introduced evidence to contradic him. Now, we protest that evidence in re- buttal cannot be introduced in this way.
 Chief Justice Park said that Benjamil Stevens appeared in this case as 8 witness He was asked if he did not make statement about certain stick, and he said he did not Witnesses were brought to contradict him This don't prove that he ever had such stick in his possession, but only contradict ls. I4;,, { seem that ycu cannot show that such a sticl was found.
 Munroe Burr was excused.
 E9bert Stannard was called, aud in reply te Mir. Harrison said he was at the Stannarl house when it was testified that Benjamin Stevens and Susan Hawley went into the pan try. The door was not shut when they went in. They were gone a moment. There were other people in the room.
 On the cross examination by MT. Jones witness said the door was not wide open when they went into the pantry. The door was not moved after they went in, so far as he saw.
 Mir. Jones-Have you talked on this subject with any one in the lobby of this court room?
 A. Yes, sir. I talked with MT. Hubbard and perhaps others. I told him that the boy told the truth except about the door being shut.
 Q. Did you not say that the door was not latched?
 A. l 1LDlok OlO, Slr.
 The State desired to introduce evidence at this point to contradict George Bunnell es to the persons who were at the scene of the hom- icide when he ''poked" over and examined the blood stain.
 After discussion ths testimony was ruled out and 8 recess was ordered until 2 o'clock. AfternOOn-Tho Last Evidence Of the
 Great Trial.
 Odeu Stevens To Mir. Harrison-Was at home in Rockland on the Friday after the homicide. MT. Jones: Whats this for? MT. Harrison: To contradict Horny Wright when he said he had a conversation on the day of the homicide with Stevens, when Stevens said he didn't crossithe corners the afternoon of the homicide. Witness Father was at home in the afternoon. Previously I had been up at the -corners Swith father. Saw nothing o1 Henry Wright, of Killingworth. at all thai day was with father all day.
 To MT. Jones: Father was at home in the afternoon, and had nap. (Mr. Jones in quired, the implication being that the conver- sation denied for Friday occurred on some other day.)
 Mrs. Luzerne Stevens: To Mir. waller-l