Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-05-17
FOUND GUILTY.
ING Jury Returns Verdict at LILO
sunday Morning Against the ss3oodle,
Alderman.

= quay SOunsel 1Of the de-
leuce moved that all that part of the testi-
mony of Inspector Byrnes and Detec,;va
CosgfoVe as TO the alleged confessions of the
defendant be stricken out. on the oround that
they were made under the inducement Mt of hone
and the pressure of fear. The motion va,
denied.
Detectlve Rogers testified that he heard
oaehne's confession made to Inspe ctor Byrnes
III warren last. His testimony was objected
10 Dy the counsel for the denfence, but the
ooJectlon was overruled. His story was sub
stahtlaily the same as that of INSPECTOR
Byrnes
on cross-examination the witness said that
the inspector and the alderman began to
speak about the Broadway railroad, about a
minute after they had entered the extension
room. They spoke in low tone. that WA,
perfectly audible to witness.
John Scott testified that George W. After,
Jaehne's former clerk. told him that the
doodle" had been kept in Jaehne's safe over
night.
When he left the witness stand, District
Attorney MARITIME announced that the prose-
cutiOn rested
At Judge Barrett's request, Clerk Twomey
was recalled and testified that he had not
seen the two names on the inside page of the
NoiA ioi tuc special meeting OF the board OF
aldermen on Aug. 80. 1884
Mr. Graham moved that the indictment be
dismissed, as the grand jury had been tricked
fraudulent record and should beEqunshed
Gen Pryor, in support Of the motion,
argued that the grand jury really did know
the name of the alleged briber, although de-
scriblng him as unknown; that is. they knew
that Inspector Byrnes knew it and wifully
abstained from obtaining that name from
him. he argued that the indictment should
De dismissed on the ground that it was not
based on sufficient evidence.
Judge Barrett denied the motion, saving
that the grounds upon which the motion was
based-that the grand jury had been tricked
into finding an indictment-was . most ex-
traordinary and unwarranted one. In re-
framing from insisting upon obtaining all the
evidence in Inspector. Byrnes' possession,
thev acted in the interests of public justice.
All the evidence shows that MOlOny was not
not the briber, but merely the hand through
which the bribery was committed.
Gen. Pryor further moved for the dismis.
sal of the indictment on the ground that
there was no evidence of the receipt of a
promise or agreement to receive . bribe, and
that no evidence that it had been received in
this county was adduced. This also was denied.
Mr.. Newcombe then began the opening ad-
dress to the jury, for the defence. He strong.
ly urged them not to let themselves be guild.
ed by preconcerted opinions or prejudice, bu,
solely by legal evidence. He said that no,
until intimidation, he might say threats, had
been made, had the district attorney, or the
man who was on the stand yesterday. made
any move against the defendant, and the mo.
for fhoir aptiOp oh ha nd in bo;.
anxiety to save themselves. Alderman
Jaehne's testimony before the Senate CON-
mittee was referred to by the lawyer, who
said that it implicated the district attorney
and Inspector Byrnes in the compounding OF
felony, and that the attack on Mr.. Jaehne
vas made in self-defeDce. The district
attorneys request to the Senate, that the
time of its committee be extended, was char
acterized by the lawyer as an attempt to Gre
ate prejudice against the prisoner. Speaking
of the surrender of Jaehne by his bondsman, D,
O'Donnell, and subsequently by Assembly
man Brennan, both liquor dealers, he init
mated that they were forced to surrender him
by police pressure. Deapite the threat that
if acquitted on the present charge he would
be rearrested on another charge if he gave
testimony injurious to the inspector or the
district attorney, the defence would feel it
their duty to place Jaehne on the stand here
he could tell the whole truth. Regarding
the alleged confession. Mr.. Newcombe said
that the jury must first suppose the defend
ant cereft of reason before they could imag-
inc that he would make the chief of the de.
tective bureau his confidant. What be said
to Inspector Byrnes on that evening he would
admit, and he would also tell why he said it,
Thomas w. Bvrnes, and not the defendant,
ho hn ho1 tho toLo
this trial.
District Attorney MARITIME was here called
bv the defence and examined. He was asked
whether he had seen the minutes of the pro
ceedings before the grand jury in reference
to this case, and said he had. He also said
in reply to question that he had been sub
penaed to produce the minutes, but declined
to do so unless so instructed by the court.
The court refused to so instruct.
William Harvey, a saloon keeper. was then
called. He remembered when the legisla-
ture passed the general surface railroad act
in 1884, and was asked if, before that time, he
had had heard Jaehne declare himself in favor
of a railroad on Broadway. The question
was objected to, but the objection was over
ruled The prosecution then offered to ad-
NIT that the defendant had go declared him.
self before the matter had come before the
aldermen.
A recess was then taken, and Mr.. New
combe announced that the defence only in
tend,d d to call as witnesses the members of
the grand jury that indicted the defendant,
the comptroller by whom they intended to
prove that the city receives a larger yearly
income from the Broadway road than from
all the other railroads in the city put together
and the defendant himself.
Henry w. Jaehne was then called to the
witness chair. He testified that he was 81
wears old and was married. He had four
children at four different times he had been
ele ected an alderman from the fifth district
He was elected four successive times from
1881 to 1885. He learned the trade of a
manufacturing jeweller from Isaac Herri.
man, serving six years at the trade. after
which he engaged in the same business in
Broome street, at first in partnership with
his brother, who died some years ago. The
witness said that he bad known Inspector
Byrpes since the fall of 1882, when he went
to the police headquarters to see after his
election returns; their relations became
friendly. The witness as an alderman voted
for the Broadway railroad franchise in 1884.
BEFORE so doing he did not receive any
promi se from any one of money or any thing
else for such action, and he never solicited
sach promise or such gift or payment; lie
never had any conversation with anybody in
reference to such promise or payment; he
voted as he did because from conversations
he had had with business men in his district
and along the line of Broadway he concluded
that the proposed railroad would be benefit