The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1883-03-02

winch was carrying out the purpose 10
which Nicholas Norris was gotten out of til
way. Court held that the evidence was ad
missable as link in chain to show tn
relationship of the parties. An exception
was noted.
Mrs. Racugle then said that the picture wa
that of Sullivan and Mrs. Norris. 1t wa
also shown to the jury, Witness first becam
acquainted with Mrs. Norris the latter par
of October, 1881, at her mothers house il
York, where she obtained rooms for hersel
and children. She cooked her meals at wit
ness's mothers stove. Mrs. Norris had
room on first floor, which she used as dining
room, a bed room on second story and
spare bed room in the third story. In abou
a week and ahalf or two weeks Sullivan
came and was introduced to witness by Mrs
Norris. He remained at the house all TIL,
| time Mrs. Norris was there occupying the sam,
room with her and her children. Besides he
mother there was in the house her two broth
ers, herself and her little girl, the daughter o
her first husband. Witness felt mortified an(
encouraged her to find house, and in abou
two months she removed to one a few doors
| below witnesses residence.
| Gross examined. Has been married about
eleven months. Her maiden name wa.
| Crosley.
BY Mr.. Young is your husband dead
madam ?"
That's none of your business" was the
prompt reply: II did not come here to be
insultcd." The answer evoked laughter
which was with some difficulty suppressed by
the court. Judge Waters remarked that
there was entirely too much levity about the
case, The witness then said that during her
first husbands time she lived in Harrisburg,
bat has lived two years and a-halfin York
Her present husband is q puddler in a rolling
mill The witness was very much provoked
by MIR. Youngs questions and said in an un-
dertone, 81 think you're crazy" then aloud,
81 don't know what you're talking about
She said she had brought the picture, which
had been given her by Mrs. Norris, for the
purpose of identifying Sullivan. She was
not here as Mrs. Norrs's enemy but came
because she had to come. Her relations with
Mrs, Norris are friendly. When asked why
she did not order Sullivan from the house
when she discovered the improper relations
between him and Mrs. Norris, she said, it
was because Sullivan was Mrs Norriss visi-
tor, not her mothers, and she could not dis
miss him. He ate at Mrs Norris's table
After Mrs. Norris moved she saw Sullivan
going in and out of her house. Sullivan was
not engaged in any business. Mrs. Norris
told witness he lived on the interest of his
money
Mrs. Kate Banded, also of York, testified
that with her husband, on the 4th of last
April, she went to Mrs. NOrris's to board. =
Mr.. Sullivan was there. After two days she
was taken ill with pneumonia, and was not
able to move about for four weeks. After
that time they left, because Mr.. Sullivan and
Mrs. Norris roomed together. Witness
asked Mrs. Sullivan why she was not in
npurnnr opl oil ,n paplinl hot
on his death bed, requested her not to wear
mourning. He died. she told witness, of
cholera morbus
The State closed at this point, except for
rebuttal
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENCE.
Hall r Hildt, of Hartford county, testified
that he knew Mrs. Norris before she removed
to York and knew Sullivan by sight He
boarded two or three days with Mrs Norris,
whilst seeking work in York. Occupied
room with Sullivan, who worked in sash
factory. This was in July or August, 1881
Is certain of that. lie obtained employment
as Il blacksmith and boarded with his en-
ployer. Sullivan was hired on Mr.. Wesers
farm and boarded there sometimes
Adjourned until Saturday morning.
SATURDAY MORNING.
The accused showed no change in her
demeanOr. She took her seat and conversed
pleasantly with her counsel while the court
disposed of some business connected with the
appeal and criminal dockets. Mr.. Stump,
then arose and said that the defence were
willing to submit the case without argument.
Judge Maynadicr also expressed the will
lingness of the State to submit the case, but
suggested that the jury ought to be instructed
as to the form of verdict. Judge Yelott re-
marked that there could he only two forms
ofverdict, namely, acquittal or murder in the
first degree. Judge Maynadier said that many
cases are laid down in the books in which
other forms of verdicls were brought in p)is.
oning cases. where for instance, culpable
negligence was shown in the administration
of poson-thc verdict being manslaughter.
Judge Gellott said such n verdict is not in
accordance with the statute law of Maryland
The jury were then polled and retired in
charge of q bailiff, at 1925. -Four minutes
afterwards they returned TO the court room.
Being polled, the usual question was asked
by the Clerk Gentlemen of the jury, have
you agreed upon your verdict"
1--WE have"
"Who shall speak for your"
"Our foreman"
MARY Norris, stand up Gentlemen of
the jury, is the prisoner at the bar, Mary
Norris, guilty or not guilty of the charge
whereof she stands indicted"
The foreman Mr.. James r. Lilly, respond
ed Not guilty.
The verdict was greeted with applause,
which was promptly checked by the court
Mrs. Norris looked satisfied, rs though the
result was precisely what she expected but
showed no emotion. Shortly afterwards she
left the court room, accompanied by her
lnlhrr MIR Richard McDnnall