The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-08-29
THE JAMES TRIAL.
Efforts of the Defense to Impeach the Tes-
timony of the Witnesses.

ST. LOUIS, Aug. 28.-The Post-Dispatch
Gallatin, NO., special says: Frank James's
trial was resumed this morning. The de-
Tense asked permission to introduce specific
acts against the witness, Mrs. Bolton. with
view to attacking her credibility. The in
tention was to open up the murder of Wood
Hite at the Ford house, for which Liddeli is
now under indictment, and of which Mrs.
Bolton and Captain Ford were witnesses.
The court decided that Mrs Bolton could be
recalled and examined, not as to the killing,
but as to what she had told the neighbors
who called upon her on Sunday, Dec. 5, 1881,
and ate dinner while the lifeless body of
Hite was upstairs.
Mrs. Bolton testified that Wood Hite was
killed in the dining room, but refused to an
swer when the body was taken upstairs. An
extended cross-examination failed to bring
anything definite as to the killing or burial
OF Hite's body by night in the old spring in
the pasture She either preferred not to an
swer, or else could not remember.
Captain Ford was next called, and exam
ined as to the burial of Hites body.
Ida Bolton, aged fourteen, daughter of Mrs.
Bolton, was the next witness She was pres
ent at the killing of Hite, but the witness
was not permitted to say who did it. She
narrated the details of the burial and clean
ing OF the house. Her mother did the latter
This was in direct con tradiction to her moth
er's testimony.
Willie Bolton, sixteen years old was the
next witness for the State this morning He
positively identified Frank James as the as
socate of Liddell, Jesse James and the two
Hites. Witnesses description of the burial
OF Hite was graphic and thrilling. Captain
Ford Bob Ford and Wilbur Ford undressed
hnffx NH = had lair Aor oil
day, and wrapped it IN q horse blanket They
then took it out and burned it in the past
ure. On cross-examination the witness adj
United having said that although he didn't
know Hall and Frank James to be the same
person, he intended to swear they were any
how.
James T. Hughes and J. T. Ford were re-
called and gave unimportant testimony.
Frank r. ONeil, reporter of the Mis-
souri, Republican, testified to having an
interview with Frank James, in Missouri,
a week before the latter surrendered. and
that il was correctly published in the Re
publican. He rehearsed some of this in
terview as to where Frank lived while
in Tennessee, what he did, when and
why he left there, etc. Circuit
Attorney Hamilton asked witness where the
interview occurred, to which witness replied
that he preferred not to answer, and asked
to be relieved from stating anything
further than that it occurred in
Missouri. The question was temper
| arily withdrawn, and witness was
| asked who was present at the interview. He
replied Frank James's wife, Who else?
was asked, and witness stated that
he felt under obligations not to answer.
The court said he must answer,
| and witness then said he didn't decline to
answer from any preversenes, but when he
met Frank James on that occasion he
was under a pledge, as the other
person or persons who were
present might be predjudiced by
the statement that they were there.
Messrs johnson and Phillips, of the
prosecution, asked that the witness
be excused from violating any obliga-
ton. The court stated that the witness must
| answer the question If it were insisted on.
Mr., Hamilton insisted, and the court ruled
that witness must answer, but gave
him until tomorrow to do SO. Mr..
Hamilton then asked two more questions as
| TO where the interview was held, and whether
the persons then present were in the list of
witnesses summoned in this case, both of
which Hamilton said must be answered.
While on the stand as witness for the
State, Frank ONeil, of the st. Louis Repub-
Hcan, was asked where the interview he had
with Frank James, and which was published
IN that paper when Frank surrendered was
held, but he declined to answer or give
reason for declining, The court has given
him until tomorrow to decide. In the event
of his refusal to answer in case the State in
sists on his answer, he will doubtless be COM
| mitted to Jail for contempt of court.