Year: 1879




to-day the visit of the jury to the scene of tho
murder. The proposal to make this visit op-
posed by the State and met with cold reception
from the Court; but it was finally agreed to. rather
than to incur the part Of the State the onus OF
refusing feasible in the interest of fair
play greatly desired by the accused The various
points discovered by counsel noted in the court
proceedings. The visit is said to be the first in-
of the kind in criminal trial in Connecticut
For this reason in particular the judges viewed it
with suspicion. and of them yielded re-
luctant consent ut the end of the long controversy
after hearing private request by counsel for the
prosecution. This was. in substance. that they did
not wish to stand in the light of refusing something
which. although unusual. appeared to be not wholly
unnecessary for the Information OF the jury.


ANswERISG SHOT.


DR.. c. M. Carleton. of Norwich. one of the medical
experts for the State has written letter in reply to
the recent published statements of the defences ex-
pert. DIR. Mayer, denying that the mysterious marks
found OH Mary Stannard's check after death
nail marks The States experts, it is known. were
seriously annoyed by the withdrawal. by the State.
of the whole of the heel prints. and Dr. Care-
ton writes:-


THE chief regret OF the medical witnesses for the
State lies in the fact that the Withdrawal Of the
testimony may result in miscarriage of justice.
DR.. Mayer any one else to the contrary, the i'm
print the cheek of Mary Stannard from the
heel of a boot exactly like said to have been
by the Rev. Mr.. Hayden the day of the
murder. which boot or shoe was placed upon the
cheek Of the unfortunate girl before death and kept
there until the circulation had practically ceased.
This would have been demonstrated beyond contro-
versy but for action of the public in
withdrawing the testimony for reasons which
presume satisfactory to himself"


ARGUMENTS AGAINST VISIT


Upon the opening of the court Mr.. Waller senior
counsel for the State brought the matter of the
proposed trip of the jury to the scene Of the
tragedy. He said that the first suggestion
made in October. when. with the foliage the
trees and bushes. the country presented aspect
somewhat resembling its appearance at the time Of
the murder in September, 1878. Now the trees
bare and the views would not be corresponding For
the the lines of sight would also differ.
This applies particularly to the line of sight involv
ing the fact whether not Mrs. Hayden could have
her husbands carriage, she testified at the
preliminary trial, the day Of the murder at
tain point the spring where he met Mary Stan
nard. Continuing. Mr. Waller claimed that
plain principle of law the accused must be permitted
to accompany the excursion party for this evidence
of sight statement could legally be presented
to the jury in the absence of the accused. In
clusion. he argued generally against the trip.


Mr.. JONES' for the defence. criticised the change





agreed the trip. only last week. but when it
first suggested in October. The defence. how
ever not regarded it right to press the
while the State putting in its case, but row
brought it when the evidence for the accused
being presented. He argued that nothing other than
visit could well make plain to the jury the lines
of sight. The matter of Mr.. Hayden accompanying
the party unnatural No testimony would be
taken; the high Sheriff would. under directions of
counsel, point out the objects of Importance.


Mr.. Waller claimed that it the right of the
prosecution first state its claims the differ



not to make the Sheriff q sort of mouthpiece.


Mr.. Watrous, tor the defence led that he
had seldom known of a case where topography
important feature; conformation of the
point another within certain limits of time. The
presence or absence OF foliage will not materially
affect these conditions II it was not improper for
the survey to explain their maps of the region
why is it improper for the jury to see for them
selves?


- DIFFERENCE ALL AROUND.


The judges held long consultation, and Chief
Justice Park finally said that the could not be
legally made without the assent of both sides.
Otherwise it would be an error. In regarding
the value of horse an error was allowed because
one Of the Jurors had privately gone ana seen the
can only assent, but 1t appears that the State op
poses the excursion


Mr.. Waller said that the prosecution opposed the
trip the suppCsiton that the nal decision really
rested with the discretion of the Court. As the mat
ter stands. the responsibility of stopping the
trip appears rest upon the prosecution. This re-
sponsbiity the prosecution did not wish assume,
although they regarded the trip inadvisabIe. Ii
the defence insists then the State WILL in q spirit
Of fairness. withdraw its opposition.


Mr.. Jones-Then We insist the Court may re-
gard it as both sides asserting.


Chief Justice Park-The jury may retire to their
room for consultation. Let US how they feel
about it,


The jury retired, and upon returning fifteen min
utes later. Chief Justice Park remarked that the
Court would not order the trip One OF the jurors,
Mr. Brotheron. of Milford replied that while there
no general wish to CO. they had no objections to
this il might be we'll to abandon the trip He char
acterizcd the proposition extraordinary apt to
furnish foundation for error. because the law pre-
scribes that the jury shall find verdict only on the
evidence presented i'll court


Judge Harrison remarked that the defence had al
ready arranged for special train from New Haven
Guilford and teegraphed to have carriages ready
at that point to convey the party thirteen miles to
Rockiand. His associate, Mr.. Waller, questioned
whether it would not be error for the Court
sent to the trip under any circumstances. cit is not
a pleasant country to visit even in summer, to say
nothing OF a bleak winter. 1t is Of the best
places ever saw to tempt man to suicide."
Q.aughter) F


go?


Mr.. Brotherton "a juror,--Yos. IL the accused de-
sres 1t.


Chief J Justice Park--we rather inclined to think
under all the circumstances, that 1t had better be
abandoned.


After further consultation with counsel for
the State the judges asscnted to the visit. and at
fifteen minutes past eleven r. NJ the Court adjourned
until morrow ut nine O'Clock.


JUDICIAL PICNIC.


The judges, counsel and jurors immediately loft
for the railroad station.


The party reached Guford about one o'clock. and
two hours later. after a hard drive q rough
country. entered the little hamlet OF Rockland. In
cluded in the party were Chief Justice Park all the
counsel for both state aud Defence the twelve jury
men, Sheriff Byxb and several deputies. In view
OF the scznt transportation facilities to be had ut
Guilford and the alarming probability Of being
left the cold. toes peak the newspaper rep
resentativcs made the trip IRON New Haven TO
Rockland wholly in carriages wearying drive OF
twenty one miles However. they reached the scene
In advance OF tho official party. The general hating
place of the visitors was at Haydens former home,
now occupied by seymour Iibbas. a farmer.


MODE OF PROCEDURE.


The agreement adopted tor pointing out to the
Jury the various places of interest for counsel
on either side to invite attention aud the sheriff to
repeat the words to the jurors. II different claims
were made AS To localities lines OF sight OF other
wise, they separately stated by tho respective
counsel and the jurors were then given time to use
their eyes and form their own opinions.


Tho FIRST application OF this method or procedure
was ut the Hayden house. Mrs. Hayden had testified
Mt the preliminary trial that when sitting at lower
window She had her husbands carriage at .