Year: 1879

W


rr tstar that She would 20 to Hayden early the
| next morning, when he returned from MADISON ana


thus serve the purposes OF the e.es @ s,o nel M


Jones argued that the declaration could not be con-
! not done until the following morning.
! Chief Justice Park remarked that there must be


connecting links between the declaration and the act
! Mr.. Walier-It was impossible for her to see him


until the next morning, for he in Madison, ten
| miles distant ana she knew it.


Mr.. Watrous-The act must be constituent OF ana


not prophetic Of On the following day when she
did 20 she made no declaration whatever After
further controversy Chief Justice Park said that II
/ there were any connecting links any repetition OF
the declaration on the day OF the act the testimony
admissible.


Mr. Waller-Now. Susan at the time of the burn


ing the letter did Mary say anything about going
to see Mr.. Hayden. and when she intended 10 500


Objected to, but admitted with the proviso that
the connecting link be supplied
| q. What did she say A. She said the letter was
then; she could see him herself. seeing that
she had got home !.
She said she wanted to him. bun he wouldn't be
home that day Sunday. so she would so and see


o. On Monday morning did your sister leave the
house early? A Yes sir; between seven and eight
o'clock. -
O. Did she say who she was going to see? A. She
said to father she was going to see Mrs. Haydens
baby and to me that she was going to see Mr.. Hay


o. Did she tell you Sunday Monday what she
was going to see Mr.. Hayden for-her motive for


objected to and held under advsemcnt until after
noon.


The court room was thronged at the afternoon
session Upon the opening OF the proceedings Mr:
Waller returned to the question asked yesterday and


''Did Mary tell you on the day of her death where
she was going. and what she was going for. and who
she expected to meet and whether she expected
TO receive from the person she to meet any
quick medicine to help her out of her troubleY'


This gave rise to an extended argument on its ad-
instability and Chief Justice Park delivered
tended ruling. quoting hberally from cases where


tb on ns rs geS were Of
cont case Of State vs.: Hunter. in New
ceived the declaration of police officer that he was
going to certain place where he was afterward
found dead; in the sd OF Vermont declaration of
woman that she was going to the house of quack
doctor to have operation performed. Mary STAN
quick medcine.'. where IS the difference between
this case and the Vermont case? Other authorities
were cited.


The interrogatory was then repeated to the wit
ness and pursuantto suggestion of the Court it
was modified.


Mr.. JonesIs she to tell who Mary expected to
meet there!


Chief Justice Park-The witness will state the
receive "quick medicine" from the accused 1t can
be shown.


Mr.. Jones-pleasc advise us for what particular
purpose it can be introduced
Chief Justice Park-Merely as explanatory OF the
act of going.


Some controversy ensuing. in which there was
suggestion by Haydens counsel that the State was
wasting great deal of time. Mr.: Waller sprang to
his feet and raped them over the knuckes by sta
ting that a careful calculation had shown that thus
far the State had consumed only fortyour hours in
examining its witnesses, while the defence had
sumed $50 hours In their cross-examination.
MARY's PURPOSE IN MEETING HAYDEN.
The question was repeated. and the witness re-
piled :-"She said she was going to meet Mr.. Hayden
in the woods that he had been to Middletown that
day ana got some quick medicine;' after she came
"Stop, stop!' cried Mr.. Watrous.
The Court ruled that this could not in II it
was not connected with Mary's going into the
woods.


Witness continued:-she said it to me about half
past eleven on the day she died. she had just been
down to the spring. when Mr.. Hayden was there;
she told me about i've minutes after she came back;
in the house-in the bedroom; father and
benjamin Stevens were in the front room; was in
the kitchen when she returned. and she called me
into the bedroom saying she had something to tell
me.


O. What did she tell you took place at the spring?
Objected to and not admitted. on the ground that
it sufficient to show that she actually had the
purpose OF going to the woods.


Mr. Waller put a by pothetcal case of person who
told that she met an hour before man who had got
medicine for her, and wanted her to meet him at
certain place and certain time. He claimed that
this directly connected with the purpose.
MIR. Waller-Susan, what did Mary say You in
| the bedroom about where she was going and when?
| a. She told me that she was going up to the Big
| Rock to meet Mr.. Hayden. to get some medicine.
| Q. Did she tell you on her return to the spring
where she expected to go? A. Yes. to the Big Rock
| Q. Did she tel you when she was going? A. Yes;
| right away after dinner.
q. Did She tell YOU whether she was to meet any
body there? A. Yes, sir; Mr.. Hayden.
O. Did she tell you what she was going there to
meet him for? A. Yes; to get rid OF her trouble


O. Did she tell you how9 A. Yes; by taking some
'quick medicine"


O. Did she tell you she had any appointment?
This was objected to and ruled out as not being
part of the purpose.


O. Did she state what she going to take with
her? A. Yes; pail. and she took one.
Testimony to her object in taking the pail was
ruled out. The State claims that it deceive
her father into the belief that she merely going
after blackberries.


O. What did she say when she left the house one
O'Clock? A. She looked at the clock and said. "It is
time to so to fill my agreement ut the Big Rock"
q. Who heard her say that? A. don't know:
father and Mr. Stevens were in the next room and
might have heard 1t il they had been listening The
girls father is quite deaf


told me that she was going to Hayden the next
morning to get him to help her by medicine
giving her some money; that Monday morning
her write couple OF lines piece OF paper
and she told me she was writing to


1--WE object" exclaimed MIR. Watrous.


Mr.. Waller said the State proposed to show that
Mary wrote this to give Hayden IL his wife CHANGED
be present. 1t Informed him where she desired
TO meet him.


The Court ruled that the contents could not be
proved by Mary's declarations of its contents nor
that Mary took the note with her when she started
for Haydens house. and that she did not see him
during that visit.


the second time on Monday she said to me that sho
going again to see If he mad come home at three
O'Clock; she went again. saying to me about the
same thing father asked her to get rake W hen he
knew she going to Hayden's she brought the
rake back and pail of butter.


Q. Did she say into what building she had been
and who she saw at Haydens?


Objected TO and ruled out.


The counsel tor the State then announced that
they were through with the witness. and the Court
adjourned until nine o'clock tomorrow. when .
rigid cross-examination will be commenced.


WISE 10 HANG.