The Portland daily press., 1895-02-08
TRIAL or DR.. HUGHES.
Story Of the Death Of Mary B.
sfB II Isl ss Dunn.
MARTIN j. MONAHAN'S LONG AND
INTERESTING STORY.

DR., Hughes Accompanied by His Fami-
Iy, Who Greet Him Affectionately-
Testimony of Physicians and Others
Scenes and Incidents of Notable
Trial.
The trial of DIR. John B. Hughes for the
murder of Mary B. Dunn was recon-
menced Thursday morning in the Superior
court. The ten traverse jurors were In
attendance, and all was ready to proceed.
The attendance was larger than on the
preyious day, but the number was far
less than on any day of the Lewis trial.
There were present no ladies, except two
who were sitting in the witness seats.
The proceedings began with the calling
of Jurors. Dr. Hughes had been in his
seat for some time, apparently viewing
the proceedings with GOODNESS. Among
the witnesses sat Martin j. Monahan,
the burly young lum herman of Lancas-
ter. Nh. He is large man, with
slightly ford, weatherbeaten, but fresh
face, set off only by small sandy
mustache. Monahan has very low
voice, SO low that he can scarcely be
heard by the jury. The sharp admoni-
tious of both Judge and counsel utterly
failed to cause him to raise his voice for
any length OF time; nor did the frequent
complaints have any percepti BILE effect on
his good tempered stolidity. Yet Mona
han is far from stupid man. He man
ages and owns a business that employs in
the woods this winter fifty men; his
countenance indicates frmness and judg-
ment enough to ensure success.
Charles VI. Jordan, of Yarmouth, was
the first of the tel special traverse jurors
called. He had read some account of
the trial In the newspapers, but had not
formed an opinion. Judge Symonds at
tempted to challenge peremptorily; but
Judge Bonney informed him that he had
no right to challenge. Judge Symonds
replied that the defense had used but
nineteen of the twenty peremptory chal-
leugs allowed by the law.
Judge Bonney admitted the truth of
that; but said that the permission as to
challenges applied only to the forming
of the panel. The panel had been formed
and the defense had gone on to use its
further right of two challenges Oh the
completed panel. This exhausted the
defence's peremptorY challenges. Judge
Symonds raised the point that the de-
fence in the Lewis trial had been allowed
the privilege of peremptory challenge af-
ter the panel had been completed.
Judge Bonney replied that such was the
case, but only because in that trial the
counsel for the State had waived its
right to object.
Mr.. Jordan was accepted and appointed
foreman. The jury, therefore, stands as
follows:
Charles W. Jordan, of Yarmouth,
Archelaus Carsely, of New Gloucester,
Royal E. Hudson, of Scarboro,
William D. Libby, of Standish,.
David M. Lawrence, of Yarmouth,
William H. FL. SpilIer, of Raymond,
Wi Ison M. Ward, of Windham,
Edward L. Hicks, of Harrison,
John D. Hayden, of Raymond,
Dexter W. Bryant, of Brunswick,
Lyman B. True, of Yarmouth,
Peter Stewart, of Windham,
The jury having been formed at last,
Assistant CLERK of Courts Libby proceed
cd to read the indictment which in the
proper legal terms charged DR.. Hughes
with performing the criminal operation
from which the death of Mary b. Dunn
is slleged to, have resulted. The indict-
ment having been read, County Attorney
Charles A. True opened
THE CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
After few preliminary remarks as to
the nature of the case, he went on to re-
Iats to the jury how Mary B. Dunn, girl
of &c years, came to Portland one Of the
earlier days of November of last year,
and had performed a criminal operation.
The State was not confined to proving
THAI the operation was performed on
particular day. This WAS case of muir
der or homicide. Murder is defined in
our statutes as unlawful killing with
malicious intent to do the same. But
there were certain other forms of killing
which are also regarded AS murder by
the law. This WAS such a case, where
death had resulted from the performance
of an unlawful act. he performance OF
the unlawful act takes the place of the
malice which accompanies other forms
Of murder.
The State claims that this respondent.
on tie third or fourth of last November
CRIMINAL operation from which Mary
Dunn's death resulted. The counsel for
the State cannot produce the instrument
or any witnesses who saw the act done.
When an operation of this kind occurs
there are generally no witnesses except
the one who performs the operation and
the one upon whom it is performed. And
when the hand Of death has sealed the
lips of the latter, there is left no human
witness to proclaim the guilt of the lat
ter. But series OF circumstances are
connected with the event, which will
show the guilt of the respondent. We
cannot show the instrument with which
the deed was done; but we shall show,
as we contend, that such an instrument
Was used, and that from the use of it re-
suited the death of Mary Dunn.
In putting together the chain of cir
oumstances bich shonld declare the re-
sroudent's guilt, the State would call
witnesses to show that Mary 3. Dunn, a
young woman of 26 years of age, who
lived at Lancaster, NH, where She was
employed as a house servant, came here
on the second of last Novembe
The State would introduce witnesses to
show that she communicated rhe object
of her visit before she left Lancaster.
y1sJ in portio,,1 80