Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-17

profession and family. On this question the
 public prosecutor insists that the accused was
 criminally intimate with the deceased; that
 their criminal intimacy commenced on the
 20th day of March, 1878, the night of the oys-
 ter supper at the parsonage {; that If you be
 lieve from the evidence that it commenced
 then, you will have no difficulty in believing it
 continued afterward, inasmuch as the parties
 did live in the vicinity of each other.
 You remember the evidence on the subject
 the assertions and denials which have been
 made. An important question concerning 1t
 is whether the accused left the oyster supper
 that night at about Il o'clock, or soon after,
 and went to his house where the deceased then
 was This question has becn strenuously con-
 troverted, for it is regarded by the State and
 bearing upon the question under considera-
 ton, whether criminal intimacy existed be-
 tween the accused and the deceased
 On the one side of this question you have
 the testimony of Imogene Stannard and Charles
 Hawley, the sister and half brother of the de-
 ceased. They state substantially that they
 were at the supper that the accused and his
 wife were there that the deceased was at the
 house of the accused; that they left the sup
 per at about II o'clock in the evening and
 on the way home stopped at the house ot the
 accused to give letter to the deceased, which
 had been received at the supper; that the ac-
 cused came there that upon inquiry being
 made of the deceased whether she would re-
 turn home with them, the accused objected
 to Ter going that they went away, leaving
 her there with the accused. In support or
 this evidence you have the testimony of Mrs.
 Mills, who states that she was at the supper
 that she saw the witnesses, Imogene. Stannard
 and Charles Hawley, when they left the house;
 that it was about Il o'clock that it was after two suppers had been served that soon after
 they left, inquiry was made for the accused
 that the next time she saw him was between -I- k,,k ny of Mrs. Loren Stevens, who states that she
 was at the supper; that she saw Imogene
 Stannard and Charles Hawley when they left
 ahe house; that 1t was between 10
 and II o'clock-it might be about
 II o'clock; that when the people were rising
 from the third table she heard her husband
 inquiring for the accused that he was out of
 patience that he could not be found, You
 have also the testimony of Luzerne Stevens, who states that he was at the supper; that at
 some time between 10 and II o'clock he went,
 at the request of Loren Stevens, to find the accused; that he searched through all the
 house-up stairs and down stairs for him, but he could not be found. This is the evidence on the part of the State, tending to show that
 the accused and the deceased met that night at the house of the accused soon after II o'clock.
 The accused denies that he was at his house on the night in question at the time the wit nesses for the State say that he was. He ad-
 mits he was there at about o'clock that even- ing caring for his children, but after that time he was not there until after the evenings en- tertainment A number of witnesses called by
 the accused have testified to seeing the ac- cused at the supper from Il o'clock till about
 half-past Il, and among the number one Bart
 lett, who states that he smoked with the ac- cused in the house and out of the house. In relation to the testimony of the witness Bart
 lett, the claim on the part of the public prosecutor is that his testimony should be taken with allowance; that he made out of court an awful declaration, justifying the accused in committing the murder, if he was guilty that declaration, the claim is, shows the utmost bias on his part in favor of the accused. In relation to the other witnesses, the claim on the part of the public prosecutor is, that the facts about which they testify are of no importance in the case unless they oc- cured at the time stated; that if they oc- cured at any other time during that evening, they do not tend at all to show that the ac- cused was not at his house, as the witnesses for the State say that he was that the recol- lection of the time when the said transaction took place is one of the most difficult things that a witness can remember with any degree of certainty, unless there is something that calls the attention of the witness to the time when the occurrence took place. In relation to the 1 testimony of the accused, the claim is that he testifes under as strong an inducement to
 
 | to witness; that he testi6es for his life, and therefore his testimony should be received with great caution when opposed by disin- terested evidence; that tbs witnesses 1mo- gene Stannsrd and Charles HawIey cannot be mistaken in what they testify in regard to seeing the accused at his house soon after II o'clock; that the fact must have been as they testify or else they falsify the truth that it is ! unreasonable to suppose that they went home \ at o'clock in the evening, so soon after go-
 ing to the supper. On the part of the ac- | cused, it is said that he was not there after | about 9 o'clock in the evening till \ the close of the entertainment. You will determine this question.
 The public prosecutor claims further on | this question of motive, that deceased be- | lieved that she was pregnant; that she was distressed on that account that she had 8 \ tumor which produced such symptoms that | she informed Mrs. Studley of the feelings and | emotions she experienced; that Mrs. Studley made an examination of her person and found one of her breasts harder than would be nat ural if she was not in such condition she \ found also evidence that she continued to havehe monthly periods, which enumerated | to some extent the evidence of pregnancy j; | but inasmuch as this fact sometimes, it is | said, exists in state of pregnancy, it failed | to have it's proper effect upon the mind of \ Mrs. Studley and the deceased; that the de- \ ceased continued to believe that she was preg- | she went away saying she was going to see the | accused and have him do something for her i; | that she arranged with Mir. Studley on the | way home to call on the accused, if he should | be found to be at home, and make her condi- | tion known to him; that the accused was not I at home, and so the arrangement failed; that | she informed her sister, Susan Hawley, of her | supposed condition, and the day after her ar rival home went three times to see the &C., I cused, saying as she went that she was going ! to make her condition known to him and tell | him that he must do something for her; that | she went twice in the morning, but the &C., ! cused was not at home; that she went again \ in the afternoon about 4 o'clock and found | the accused at home that she had an inter I view with him in the barn, and there in I formed him of her supposed condition, and | hence the motive to commit this crime. All
 this is denied by the accused, and you will | remember the considerations he has urged on the subject. Much expert testimony and many medical | works have been introduced upon the ques- | tion whether the tumor found upon the per son of the deceased was large enough to pro- duce symptoms of pregnancy. The State | strenuously claims that it was and the accused | that it was not. At all events the State claims that it clearly appears that the de- | ceased believed she was in state of preg- nancy; that all her acts showed it conclu- sively. Another question on this subject has likewise been strenuously controverted by the parties, and that is whether the deceased had an interview with the accused at the barn of | the accused, as claimed by the State, or not | This question is undoubtedly very important one in the case on the question of motive
 The question lies between Mrs. Young and ! her daughter on the one side, and the accused | and his wife on the other. Mrs. Young and
 her daughter were at the house of Luzerne Stevens, directly opposite the house of the ac-
 cused and nearly opposite his barn. They testify in the most positive manner that they saw the deceased and the accused go to the barn together, and saw them enter the barn ;; l that they remarked about it at the time; that l they watched for them when they came out. It is said that these witnesses are wholly dis | interested in the case; that there is no room | for naistake-no chance to mis-remember :;
 that what they testify tois true, or is willfully | false. The accused and his wife f1atly deny | the testimony of these witnesses they say | the deceased did not go to the barn on that occasion. There appears to be no way to reconcile the testimony of these witnesses Which party is to be believedP It seems to be a question of veracity between them. | Which is to be believed? It is said that one party is disinterested, but that the other