Year: 1879

THE QUESTION OF ITS REINTRoDucTIoN IN


THE TRIAL STILL UNDErERMINED---THE


STATES RESERVE TESTIMONY.


NEW HAyIN. Conn. Now 80. 1879.


The Hayden trial will be resumed tomorrow. The
question OF again introducing the matter of the
alleged heel print found Mary Stannards cheek
has yet been acted upon by the counsel for the
prosecution. On Wednesday last further testimony
OF the experts was checked and the whole matter
abandoned upon a demand by the defence that the
skull and cheek which have been preserved in alco-
ho be brought into court for inspection by the
jury. The prosecution protested against this
grounds of public policy, and that it was improper
to exhibit such CHASTITY object in open court. The
ruling OF the judges that the defence entitled
to the production. ii insisted upon. resulted in
agreement between the prosecution and the defence
for the abandonment of this part of the evidence.
1t belonged to the most important brought forward
by the state Several experts stood ready testify
that the marks on the check OF the murdered girl
produced by the rude pressure of Haydeu's
brogan, aud had prepared diagrams and records of
measurements to support their statements DR..
Treadwe of Boston. had already given his evidence


COMMENTS THE LOCAL PUBLIC.


The course pursued by the State has been vari.
ously commented upon. On somewhat similar
grounds another important feature was abandoned
in the early part Of the trial. this second affair
is denounced in quarters n confession Of
weakness. 1t is curious fact however. that in legal
circles contrary view is taken, and the claim
made that the State is benefited. DIR. Treadwells
evidence had gone to the jury. The abandonment
the defence from putting in adverse test
mony or warpup it's value by cross-exami alton and
showing. as in the of the arsenic feature, the
many uncertainties of delicate scientific investiga
tions. The understanding. of course is that the
whole matter stands though the jury had never
heard it, and that 1t will again be referred
during the But will the jury blot 1t from their
memories? 1t was one of the important links in the
chain OF crcumstantal evidence. IT the nail marks
were made On the cheek by Hayden's brogan the
great certainty that Hayden was the man who
was with the poor gri when she came
the bearings of Dr. Treaiwels testimony. Old
criminal lawyers that evidence ruled out quite
as ehectual with jury in most evidence
which remains in case. Hence there seems to be
some foundation for the claim that the prosecution
has gained rather than lost by the Abandonment,
and can safely permit the matter to stand un-
changed.


REMAINING TASK OF THE STATE.


The counsel for the State will not have q confer
euce on the matter until tomorrow, and il by any
possibility it's reintroducton should be decided
upon no announcement will be made in court until
Tuesday. Mr.. Walters private statement to the
counsel for the defence that the State might insist
upon putting in the testimony after all has paved
the way for such action. The withdrawal made
without conference with Judge Harrison. who pre-
pared the case on behalf OF the State. and who.
through illness, was not in court last week. II
was understood that he would be governed in his
final action by Judge Harrisons wishes; but it may
NC stateu poou the latter Is some.
whct Indifferent. That is, he is not inclined to
think that the State has lost very heavily IL ut all,
by the withdrawal. He is said to have been
really confident of the value of the testimony until
the morning of the day it was introduced, when he
was visited by one of the experts who explained the
full results OF the investigation and convinced him
that everything could be proven that had been
promised


The State will very nearly conclude its testimony
in chief this week. The most important witness
will be Susan Hawey. half sister of the murdered
girl. Her testimony embraces a declaration made by
Mary Stannard that she was going to the woods to
meet Hayden, who had obtained "quick medicine"
for abortion purposes. The defence will earnestly
oppose the introduction of this declaration in evil
dence. for if it in it cannot fail to be damag
ing to their client. The main legal question in-
volved has already been argued in another instance
and the Court decided the declaration admissible.
This was declaration by Mary to her employer
Mrs. Stndley of her supposed pregnancy. In the
argument on the adnissiblity of this nearly all the
available authorities cited, and the Court,
while giving Its ruling stated that the ruling to
the subsequent question in the declarations to
Susan Hawley would be postponed until the QueH
tion was actually and separately presented.