The San Antonio light. (San Antonio, Tex.) 1883-1886, 1885-02-18
MALFEASANCE In OFFICE.
INVESTIGATION BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
The Evidence Addueed In the Trial
OF City Attorney Newton
Continued.

Mr.. Tarleton.
Q. Did you claim n deduction for
thisY A. did not.
Q. His Honor decided that ordinance,
how9 A. That the city had no juris-
diction.
O. Was that one .sthe ordinances in
cuded In your contractg a. There was
no special ordinance intended In the con-
tract; he was to defend us from all OF
them.
Q. TO defeat any ordinance that came
upY A. lie thought he could.
q. Did he at any time and place APP
pear for you? A.. lie had no occasion
since then.
q. Do you know II he came to the
Council and fought that ordnance A.
No, sir.
q. Did you know of this drafting Of
n new ordinance? A. No. sir.
q. You consider the whole amount
paid by arrangement A. Ii was all sat
isfactorily arranged.
q. What was the date yOu had your
house closed up? A. | don't know: 1t
was closed up for six or seven months.
q. But at the time you were In some
trouble about an ordinanceY A. We we're
closed up by the City Marshal, whether
by prejudice or because Of mn ordinance,
don't know.
q. The six months stipulated would
take you to what point? A. | have not
the remotest idea.
q. II went through without any more
trouble? A. When the ordinance was
defeated the city did not attempt to ex-
ercise any jurisdiction. consequently we
have been running ever since.
q. You mean there was no effective
ordinance against sportingY A. Really,
| am not posted about the ordinances. !
know one thing, the city has not inter-
fered before or since IL was so decided
it had no jurisdiction.
q. Who Of your friends were in that
matter before Judge Callaghan under
the new ordinance? Do you remember
the namesg A. Idon't remember
q. You don't remember who 1t was
on trial at the time the ordinance was
declared to be void. A. | don't know
whether myself or some one connected
with me.
Newton about this transaction wi tn
Eckford. A. No; not word.
q. Was there any reason why you
should not have such talk? A. No.
q. lou never called on him ut any
time or place? A. No, sir.
Q. Did he have any knowledge about
it-did he approach you? A. In no
shape, form or fashion.
q. You never brought II to his
knowledge? A. No. sir.
Cross-examined. Q. Who made this
contract with Eckford? A. made 1t.
Q. Who was present. A. had
made this contract individually with
Eckford to draw the papers up; Yates
was with me; Stevens dropped In
with us and accompanied us.
q. Who were the parties TO the con-
tract? A. | don't know whether | was
the principal one or not; do not know
whether Yates signed it or not.
q. What papers were signed? A.
Gave him my note payable on monthly
installments.
Q. What person did you employ by
that contract? A. Eokford.
z. Any other person? A. No.
q. Did you employ Newton? A. No.
q. Did you employ Eckford because
Of his influence over Newton? A. No.
q. Why dldyou employ Eckford? A.
For several things. lie is an able law
yer, and sometimes gets on little frolic
and patronizes me, and so thought 1t
right TO return 1t, you see.
q. Eckiord had represented you in
several other cases, had he not? A..
Yes.
@. You employed himpror to that
time? A. Yes.
Q. Did he come to you or did you 20
to him firstY A. Don't know whether
he came first or not.
Q. What did he say about his ability?
A. Or course, when u man is In distress
he tries to seek all the counsel he can
find, and Eukford came to me and gave
me his views that he believed he could
defeat any ordinance.
q. II was on account of some defect
In the charter? A. Yes, sir.
e.. Was that the only reason? A.
That was the only reason.
q. Can you state the date of the con-
tract. A. | cannot now.
q. Did you sign note in conjunction
with Mr.. Yates, In which Eckford ap-
peared principalg Did you make note
first, and did not he afterwards bring
that note to You? A. Yes, sir.
2. Could you identify that note? A.
es, sir. Document produced and
Identified by witnessl.
Q. Was that part of the considera-
tion for his services? A. Yes, sir
q. How long after the note was 1t?
A. A very short while; Jim was
strengthened and wanted some money.
and came to me and wanted me to pny
him. said preferred not to until he
had finished his services. lie pressed
so hard, and | said | would execute a
note for $3.50 at 30 days.
q. Mr.. Reddick, did YOU directly or
indirectly employ Newton or make any
compromise with him? A. None what
ever In the world. | have not spoken
to Newton half dozen times.
e. DID you employ Newton? a. In
no way, shape, form or fashion.
Y. How much did you pay Eckford
IN cashf a. | gave him 500 at the
commencement, at the date of the con
tract.
Q. Did he give you u receipt for IT?
a. Yes, sir. Receipt produced and
Identified by witness
q. Is that the date of the contract.
July 20, 1883? A. guess so.
q. Examine this paper, MIR. Reddick,
please; do you know anything about
MAR a. Yes; this is u release, you
understand, In the event | should 90 on
his note for $3.50 so that he could realize
the money any time he wanted 1t.
q. Who signed that paper Won now
hold? A. Mr.. Eckford
The following papers were then In
troduced as evidence for the defense.
!. Receipt of Reddick, July 6. 1883.
2. Receipt dated July o, 1883.
D. Note on Lockwood & Kampmann at
~ days after date for $3.50, signed by
Il. Reddick and Sam Berliner.
Redirect; @ These notes then, Mr..
Keddick, disclose the payment of $3.50.
Do you pay him the money ut once or
NJ different timesy A. No; think that
this S2DO WaR the navmant In fill