The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-11-01
rKYEKS 'nIsiED.
Il,c stnr Ronte Jury bribery Case


Opened Ye,terdny.G $
WASHINGTON, October 3l.-The first OF
the jury bribery eases, lhat against Arthur
PAYNE, colored, came up in Police Court
to-day. Governor Wells and Mr.. Kerr for
the Government, were in attendance.
Payne was attended by his counsel, Messrs.
Padgett, Newman and Davies and Paget,e.
Nfr. Brewster Cameron, Col. Robert G.
1ngersoll. Seward Mcl.aineand others, who
had been connected with the Star route
trial sat within the bar.
After the presentation OF several aflida-
Wits Juror Brown wascalled tolhe standard
told the story Of Payne's attempt at bribery
in substance, rs alreadyrclnted in the press.
Upon crosse examination the witness said
he was informed through an anonymous
note that Fall was working up this scheme.
Witness did not believe they had any in.
tention OF paying 81 800 for his vote. He
did believe that it WAS n job to send him
to the penitentiary.
The defence endeavored without success
10 obtain statement from the witness OF
the conversation between himself and
Gov. Wells. The prosecution objected and
the Court sustained the objection.
The witness said that on October 18th last
hc made an affidavit (what is known as
the Ingersoll ailidayit), but upon objection
from Governor Wells the defence prevented
the questioning OF the witness on the sub.
ject, the object being 10 contradict him.
The original affidavit was then produced
and witness was examined upon It's sub.
ject matter. Witness denied Falls name
had been mentioned in the affidavit, and
when the document was exhibited to him
containing Falls name in interlineation,
he said he thought it llad been inserted
alter lie swore to the affidavit, which he
said was in Col. Insetsoll's handwriting.
1t was not true he used Falls
name OH that occasion. So much
OF The affidavit rs stated that
Martin (anotler Juror was to be influenced,
was untrue. lie did not remember who
told him Col. lugcrsoll wanted to see him,
but he went up 10 his Office and made an
affidavit, which followed tho one made
before 10 Assistant District Attorney
Moore. In his conversation with Payne,
the witness made an appointment for the
following Monday. His object was to find
out the man behind Payne. He regarded
Payne as dupe. This man, he believed,
bad written the agreement destroyed.
Witness denied, lauahiugly, that he had
ever offered Payne $3.50 for the written
agreement. T
The Court remarked that the matter be.
fore it was not whethera juror had been
bribed, but whether be had been mp.
preached.
Mr.. Davis replied he understood that;
he was now trying to make ont by the wit.
ness own words that TIC was unworthy
OF belief; that he had made ailldavits con-
Trajectory Of one another. - ..gs..
The examination Of the witness was re-
sumed. lie denied he had first learned OF
the existence OF the written argument OIL
Seventh street when he drank with Payne;
witness never told YIN. > r. :. Lowe he
thought there was money in the Star route
business for him, the witness. lie voted
for the appropriation made by his lodge to
send Payne out west. Did not remember
whether or not hc moved theappropriation.
The cross examination brought out. no
point Of importance.
AT the request Of the defense the further
examination OF Brown was adjourned until
to.morlow in order 10 allow them to obtain
BY subpmna upon tho Attorney General
aiiidavits collected by special counsel Wells.
ga. B. Williams, called to answer for the
aflidayits OF Nelson and others, said he Ind
returned Nelson's affidavit to Nelson. His
reason for 80 doing WAS he did not believe
This was IN honest prosecution, that the
paper was wanted for no honest purpose,
hni .for the protection OF witness, Nelson,
! who would be called before the court, he
had t.one this. y
i. !,