Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1898-10-20

up with the details of one of those disa-
greeable cases that too often creep into
our courts. 1t was the case of the State
against Jesse Patten. charged with sbus-
ing an infant.
Patten has been out on bail since his
arrest, last Nay, and he came from the
audience to face jury upon the frightful
Indictment. He Is an elderly man, quite
gray, and is married He was ably de-
Tended, Hon. T. W. Trenchard and ex-
Judge Westcott appearing as his counsel.
Ihe story, narrowing and such as can
not be repeated publicly, developed
some interesting facts. The complaining
witness, Eta Hildreth, is tall. slender
girl, and with her long dress appeared to
be older than sixteen. It was shown
that the girl mad attained her sixteenth
year, ON the 2S.h Of last May. The young
girl lived with her parents, out on Irving
avenue. The father of the girl, John
Hildreth, says he is eighty-two years old,
while the mother is considerably your-
ger.
The alleged assault, according to the
States testimony, occurred at night on
the 18th Of last March. The young girl
had gone into the yard after dark, and
while there, she claims that Patten made
a dastardly assault upon her, the result
being torn clothing, and a very great
fright.
This story was told by the girl, and in
a manner straightforward. In fact, Hon.
t. W. Trenchard, with his most skilful
cross-examination, could not shatter the
story.
The states case was substantiated by
the testimony of the girls father and
mother.
The former was a vigorous old fellow,
and despite his eighty-two years was
quite scrappy, and in answer to one Of
Mr.. Trenchard's questions concerning
the payments of his rent, the old man
said, II don't know as that is any of your
business" and the octogenarian snapped
fire. In fact, all through the case, the
old man seemed to be entirely capable Of
taking care of himself.
The state rested its case upon the testi-
mony of the three members of the Hill
dreth family.
Mr.. Trenchard opened for the defense,
and was quite elaborate in his statement
OF what was expected to be proven BY his
side of the case.
The story of the defense was like the
testimony of the state. largely family
matter, the relatives of Patten all being
in position to help him along.
The defense unfolded its story by show
ing how impossible it was for Patton to
have committed the assault. The defense
alleged that the crime was committed on
the night of the 18th of March. 1t was
shown by an abundance of testimony
that at this time Mr.. Patten was not on
Irving avenue, but rather was at No. 392
Pearl street. Mrs. Estela Gaunt, sis
ter OF Mr.. Patterns wife, was quite sick,
confined to her bed, and required con-
stant nursing. Mrs. Patten attended
Mrs. Gaunt, and at night Mr. Patten sat
up the afflicted lady. Upon the 18th of
March, particularly, Mr.. Patton was
shown to be at the house of Mrs. Gaunt,
and in her room from six O'Clock until
eleven.
The defense however, shown by the
alibi, how impossible il. was for Mr.. Pat
ten to have committed the assault, next
began to demonstrate why this charge
was brought by the Hildreth family
against Patten. This was a somewhat
lengthy story. Patten and the old man
Hildreth had some trouble concerning a
barn, and the old man did many things
for rev 4nge.
| There was considerable sparring be-
| tween the counsel for the defense and the
State, before this testimony got before
| the jury. But it got there.
Wednesday Morning.
The Patten case was concluded yester-
day afternoon with the exception of the
summing up by Prosecutor Logue, and
the charge of Judge Hoagland, and at the
conclusion of the Courts remarks, the
jury retired in care of Constable Cham.
bers.
Burdell Bailey was brought in from
Jail to defend himself from the charge of
malicious mischief.
The story was sad one, because it re-
vealed brutal husband and an abused
wife. Bailey lived in Millville before
his arrest, and had a comely Young wife.
whom he married in February, 1897,
According to the little woman Mr.. Bailey
whipped her and threw her out of the
house. She went to her parents, her
father being Franklin Spence. Later
Bailey came to the Spence house and
asked for his wife. She refused to go
out and Bailey demanded her to come
out or he would shoot. She did not
answer and gun was fired, the shot
coming through the window, bnt not in
juring anybody. Other windows were
mashed in by Bailey.
The defense was in charge OF Hon.
Thomas W. Trenehard. Bailey claims
that his wife left him without cause,
taking from the house Sl4. This he
wanted settled, and was the cause of the