The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-29
DIR. STODDARD.

luation into the complaint of w.
Leader, charging DIR. G. Ii. Stoddard
with sending an obscene letter through
the mails. Ex-Comptroller Brown is
representing the government, and r.
j. Hill the defense. The principal
portion of the afternoon was devoted
TO hearing the testimony of Mr.. Lead
er, and testimony of experts In hand
writing, with d view Of establishing
the identity between the signature OF
-. Stoddard in his complaint against
Leader charging libel, (Which COM
plant was produced In evidence) and
portion of the body of the complaint.
In order that some other specimen of
Stoddard's handwriting than merely
his signature, might be procured for
the purpose of comparison with the
letter he is accused of having
written, and upon which the COM
plnint is based. The testimony elicit
ed is as follows:
w. Y. Leader being sworn, said:
He Is the party who brought the
complaint. lie recognized the envel-
Ope produced in court in evidence as
received about $50 o'clock, Wednes-
day evening. April 16, 1884. 1t was
other mail matter by the United
States mail carrier; it contained the
writing which now recognize as ev-
idence; had difficulty with one
Jno. ID. Lennett about payment for a
load of wood that l had bought of
him, which refused to pay for, be-
cause not delivered according to con-
tract. One evening, about three
weeks prior to the receipt of this writ
ing or letter, Mr.. Sennett and had
difficulty on West Hickory street in
front OF Mr.. Whitehead's shoe shop.
We both used some pretty strong Ian
guage. DIR. G. b. Stoddard passed up
from his Office to his stable, and after
the difficulty was over he (Stoddard)
had me arrested for disturbing the |
Ieace. He made the complaint |
ind was witness against me on
said charges. afterward had Sennett |
arrested on similar charge, and said |
StOddard, although subp9naed for |
the prosecution, was the strongest |
witness for the defendant, Sennett. |
l saw Sennett and Stoddard in close |
conversation several times pending |
and after the trial. He was the only |
person who had any feeling against |
me, who knew anything about this |
difficulty. On the night preceding
the reception of this letter, some per-
son or persons, entered my office, and |
besides pieing q large quantity of |
type, emplied said type into wooden
box containing quantity of human
eexcrement, and then poured tar oyer
I Ehe type. AT the time of the reception
Uf this letter neither l nor any one |
connected with the office. knew that
tie box contained the excrement as
stated. 1t was fact known
only 60 the party or parties
who lid 1t or had 1t done.
NV office--tha office of the Daily Dis
patch-is on West Hickory street, and
DIR. Stoddard's office is on the street
about fifty yard.yy east. and on the same
side of the Street. His stable is on the
opposite side of the street, and oppo-
site my Office. l am editor and pro-
prietor of the Austin Daily Dispatch"
CRoss-ExAMl NED.
Il recollect the date C>u which the
letter was received, because 1t was on
the evening of the same ,tay we DIS
covered the difficulty at my office. do
not know where | was when the ca.r-
rier delivered the letter at my office; I
presume l was at home. l opened it
immediately upon receiving it-at
about $50. There was a two-cent
stamp upon it; presume the stamp has [
been torn off by handling. My two {
sons and q young man, named s
Cakes. were present when L opened
the letter; 1 found the letter |
among my other mail matter, all =,
brought to mo at my home by my son t
w. w. Leader. My son and Cakes I
saw me open the letter. called their '
attention to its contents. l could read t
(hArl witness rnfnQnfl n
tho handwriting in the letter.. l G
never made a copy of the letter; (here
witness at request OF attorney for the {
defense made copy Of the letter.. He {
believed he and Sennett had both used 1
profane words, but not foul. Had re-
.ceived q load OF wood from Sennett, | !
and had refused to pay for it as stated
be6sAA; (the, question as to whetherlhe
had gotten any other wood not paid [
for was ruled out). Knew that the
letter alluded to the difficulty as to
wood, between him and Sennett, be- i
cause he had never had a difficulty {
with any other wood man in his life.
So far as his knowledge went he knew [
of no other person having anything
against him, who knew of his diff
Guilty with SenDett. He Geader) had ]
published several articles against him
(Stoddard). Do not know of any one !
else have had any personal difficulty {
with, in Austin, for year before.
In answer to the question as to
whether he had at the time of receiv-
ing the letter, grudge against Stod-
dard, witness said: "There was some ,
feeling between us; don't know that
/ cared about him except to make fun
of him." He did not suspicion any,
one else than Stoddard of sending the
letter; did not think he said so; did
not suspicion Sennett; don't think he
had said so; did accuse him in a jocu-
lar way. because he knew he did not.
RE-EXAMINED BY THE STATE.
1T is my usual practice to open my
Yrnll at home-in fact, l always do it.
Never received such communica-
tion before. In my interview with
Mr.. Sennett: "Hallo, old mani re-
ceived that letter you sent me last
night" In answer to him l further
said, laughing at the time: ''Oh, yes,
you know you sent the letter" In
answer to a request from him for pay
for the load of wood, / said: "Oh ,pshawl
don't you think you have got pay for
that wood in the damage you did my
office last night" further told him
l was satisfied he didn't do it.
Did not threaten him with prison if
me Qlu uOb COQitSS. lJAu uOI dSk IllUl |
ito confess, nor use any inducement to
get him to confess.
w. b. WORKMAN,
beirsg sworn, said: 81 am chief clerk in
tn state treasury; have been in the
Office for nine years, the last three rs
chief clerk, aud have handled great
deal of hard writing at diffe;ent
times.
Witness being shown the signature
of 9. b. Stoddard to a complaint for
libel, introduced in evidence, attested
by County Attorney Wooten, and in
terrogated as to the identity of the
handwriting in the body of said COM
plant, said; "The same nameimmedi-
ately above G. b Stoddard's signature,
was written by Stoddard. The name
C. B. SCoddard, where it FIRST appears,
was not, in my opinion, written by the
same party. Wherever else the name |
of Q. b. Stoddard exists / find SINH |
iarity. The last six lines of hand |
writing in the complaint / |
recognize as resembling, generally, |
tho hand writing On the first napa aX-