National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-01-29
THE JOHNSON TRIAL,
ernnlenf 10 Examine a WifnPsG

The Defense Endeavors to Force the Gov
eminent 10 Examine a Witness.
The eighth day was consumed yesterday in the
trial of John s. NJ. Johnson, indicted for the muir
der of James E. Johnson, and the end of the hear
ing is nowhere i'll sight. The entire day yester-
day was consumed in an effort made by the de-
Tense, to compel the prosecution TO call and ex-
anime certain witnesses which they had decided
it was not necessary to place on the stand.
Justice James was promptly on time, and the
court was opened at ten o'clock.
Assistant District-Attorney Perry stated that the
Government was not able to produce its other wit
ness, as he had been sick in bed since July last,
and the Government would therefore rest its case
Not Just yet" responded Colonel Cook. ~ find
on the list Of witnesses furnished us the name of
Richard A. Norris. l think the law requires
that there should be some explanation for his not
being called, and in some places the law would re-
quire his examination"
"a subpoena wasissued for Mr. Norris" answered
Mr.. Perry, and it was returned not found If
he has been found, it was an act upon the part of
the defendant. Were he in court don't think that
would put him on the stand, for have no conf
dence in his good faith. have had sufficient ex-
perience in that respect from some of those that
the Government has already examined"
Colonel Cook said that the witness had not been
out of the city, and had been seen by number of
persons, and if he had not been found it was be-
cause no effort had been made to procure him.
$50 to the nlarshais Office for that, Colonel.
know that had nothing to do with it," said Mr..
THAT might all be very well, but the plain An
goSaxon of is that the testimony of the witness
would not be acceptable to the Government" rat
tied back Colonel Cook.
The counsel then proceeded TO cite an authority
to show that the witnesses to homicide should
all be produced in court, whether examined by the
Government or not.
Mr.. Perry read from the same work to show that
the prosecution was not required to examine all
the witnesses that it might summon, and said that
ne thought it ample cause for not putting wit
nesses on the stand when the Government stated
that it had no faith in the testimony that the wit
ness might give.
Colonel Cook arose to read from Michigan case.
and District-Attorney Corkhill began walking be-
fore the jury.
at is very impOlite to turn your back to people
reading or speaking" came forth from Colonel
Cook, in his insinuating way.
"Oh, go on" shortly replied the District Attor-
Colonel Cook resumed reading and paused when
the District Attorney up to his assistant and
commenced speaking in an undertone.
Il cannot proceed your honor with this drum
ming in my ear like the buzzing bees" cried out
Colonel Cook.
well, Colonel, it very frequently happens that
when we are speaking you and Nh. Williams in
dulgei in conversation retaliated Mr.. Perry.
IF do" said the Colonel, "it is entirely unin-
territorial to disturb but it was not to you that
The District Attorney then sat down, and Colonel
Cook completed reading the case that be had COM
menced.
District-Attorncy Corkhill maintained that they
had proved their case, and were not compelled to
call more witnesses. Especially were they not re-
quired to put witness on the stand who they be-
lieved would perjure himself, and in whose testi-
mony they had faith. 1t would be strange
procedure indeed. if the Government was com
PEELED TO call witness who might testify that
some else besides the defendant did the shoot
ing e. Williams said that thew had bson furnished
with a list Of witnesses, in which the name of
Norris appears. The Government said that ne
could not be found, when the fact was that the
witness was now in the court
He asked the court to direct the crer TO call the
name aud see if the witness was not present. He
had been before the eoronerS jury in the District
Attorneys office and the grand jury. They were
entitled to have him produced, and demanded it
District attorney Corkhill said that Mr. Williams
| had made mistake unintentionally, no doubt,
when he said that Norris had been examined in
the District Attorneys Office. He could not be
found at that time, and very conveniently kept
out of the way.
been subp9naed by the Government and returned
not found. Now, the summons showed that he
had been brought in by the defense and they were
responsible for his coming here. The Government
had announced their case closed, and would not
put this witness on the stand unless SO ordered to
do by the court, and then with the understand
ing that they should be at liberty to contradict
him. They did not wish to take poison without
having an antidotc handy.
The witness is here in court now, L understand,
and on the subpoena Of the defendant, observed
Yes replied Colonel Cook, "he is brought here
by the defendant. and now that he is here we ask
that the Government examine him."
The argument continued at some length, and
finally his honor decided that he did not lind that
the commonlaw made it obligatory on the prosecu-
ton to call witness, neither did the statute re-
auire it simply because the name was on the back
of the Indictment 1t might require the prosecu-
ton to have them in court or show why they were
not produced. He granted the motion to have him
called to see if he was present. This was done, and
the witness appeared in court.
The counsel for the defense moved that he be ex-
,.l axtt,l OI1h
Assistant District Attorney Perry objected on the
grounds that this witness was summoned on the
18th of January witness for the defendant, and
in addition. his testimony was not required by the
prosecution
Colonel Cook then proceeded to reeite the facts
in connection with the witness being called ana