Daily globe., 1883-08-28
THE FRANK JAMES TRIAL.

Dick Liddelis Damaging Testimony I'm
shake" on Gross Examination-The De-
fense Bound to Prove That Liddeu Is
An incompetent Witness Not Having
Been Pardoned for Horse Stealing-The
Counsel Hot to Acquit and Convict.
GALLAT1N. Mo, Aug. 27.-The Frank
james trial was resumed this morning.
Mrs. SamRels, mother of Frank James,
was sworn for the defense, after which
Dick Liddell was cross examined. 1t
leaked out that the defense will endeavor
to prove an ali5i, Gen. Joe Shelby being
their principal witness, and further that
the Winston gang consisted of five men,
but that Bill Cummings was the fifth man,
not Frank James.
The first fact brought out in
the cross examination was that
the witness had been convicted of
horse stealing and had served in the peni-
tentiary. Witness was questioned minute
ly as to his relations to che gang. During
the three years preceding the train rob-
berry, their trips to Hites in Tennessee, and
their return to Missouri. Saw General
Shelby at his house in 1880. Cummings
and were together, and Jesse James and
Bill Ryan were behind.
Witness denied that Shelby said to Jesse
James that two young men had been ar
rested for the Concordia bank robbery and
he EShelby did not believe they had any
thing to do with it. and Jesse replied,
pointing to witness: "There is man who
is the Dutch cashier on ahead" Witness
maintained he heard no such conversation.
After detailing further movements the
witness said the arrangement to come to
Missouri was perfected at Bud Halls house
in Tennessee, but Frank James was not
present. The defense lay great stress on
this point. Witness then narrated his trip
which terminated in the Winston robbery.
His direct testimony was mistaken.
The attorneys for the defense in the
Frank James trial express great conf
dence that if James is convicted, of which
they do not seem to have any fear, they
can secure reversal on several grounds.
The chief of these are that the alleged
pardon of Liddell contained nothing indi-
eating that Gov. Brockmeyer actually in
tended to pardon the convict, but the docu-
ment was simply communication of SEN
tence. He says his testimony was not
admissible.
1t is also held that not only is il fact
UQdG OloGiuCIlJ 4uISO lDott
before the pardon could become operative
the state must prove It was delivered to
the convict, and yet the judge, after ascer-
tanning from the witness that he did not
know whether he had ever received such q
document as was offered IN the court and
he didn't, in fact, know whether he had
read pardon at all or not, admitted the
document iu the defense and declared the
witness competent to testify.
There are still other grounds upon
which the defense rely, but these will show
that the defendent's counsel intend to fight
| the case to the bitter end.
On the other hand the prosecution are
equally determined. Mr.. Wallace, attorney
for the state, says that even had the court
ruled out the pardon or declared the wit
ness incompetent, he would have immedi
ately applied to Gov. Crittenden, who was
present, for full pardon for Liddell, and
the governor would have been under the
necessity of granting it, because to refuse
to do so would have been to virtually par.
| don Franz Tamaa