, 1888-03-23
A FINE POINT.
A Motion Made to Strike Out Chas.
Trumble's Evidence.
Spirited Argument on the Question
Last Evening.
The Colorado Attorney Meets His
Match in Cheyenne.
His Honor Rules Certain Hearsay
Testimony Competent.
An Attempt Made to Impeach Frank
An Attempt Made to Impeach Frank
DeCastrO.

The fate of Harry Patterson depends
upon the admission or rejection of the
testimony of the unfortunate Charles
Trumble. The case was brought to a
stand still yesterday afternoon by the in
PRODUCTION of two motions. Counsel for
the territory sued for the elimination of
Irumble's evidence in relation to Mr..
Cridge from the record. Cridge is the
Individual whom the condemned murder
er states was his companion upon the oc-
casion that he carried the prisoner from
Rawhide to ~Runningwater in his wagon.
The theory of the prosecution is
that upon this day Patterson assas-
sinated Tin Hat and secured
possession of the gamblers money. The
witness swore that upon his invitation the
prisoner took a seat in the rear of his con-
veyance and led his seemingly exhausted
horse. This deposition, as stated above,
is coupled with the assertion that the man
Cridge, who is absent, was also a passen-
ger. Trumble frankly admitted that in a
SOhNSiSoliOh WIFI SIluSC ldsJ hGCGInDeT
the latter could not remember the incident
cited. The defense is making every effort
to secure the attendance of this important
witness, and 1t is possible that he will
arrive from Omaha to-day. The object
Of the prosecution in wishing to eradicate
this portion of the record is quite obvious.
Judge Maginnis disposed of the mo-
ton in short order. His ruling was brief,
pithy and informal. The question is a
very grave one and will doubtless be
widely quoted. His honor held that
while hearsay testimony was clearly mad
missable, and the principles of law gov
erning the point were well settled, he
was constrained to override the motion of
counsel for the people. No question that
could be raised, he maintained, could so
absolutely appeal to the discretion of the
court. He felt that, in the face of stat
utory provisions to the contrary, the evil
dence under discussion should be retained.
Justice to the parties concerned almost
demanded hat evidence which would
either ~substantiate or contradict the
testimony of a deponent should be
deemed admissible. Cridge was within
the jurisdiction of this court last Deem
Der and should have been subpened by
one of the litigants. He had been al
lowed to depart while counsel for both
sides was perhaps aware that he was a
material witness. Hence any utterance
by Bridge in relation to the the transaction
would be considered testimony.
Counsel for defense moved that the
evidence of Trumble be stricken from the
record and withdrawn from the Jury.
Court informed the attorneys that he
would require exhaustive arguments on
the proposition and a recess was taken un-
til 1880 last evening.
The Colorado advocate made a very elo-
quent speech in support of his motion.
The gentleman set forth that under the
common law Trumble, being a convicted
telon, was an incompetent witness. The
record of witness had rendered him in
famous and destroyed his capability to
SSSeiy III My CdSc. DelenSe nau not, by
failing to object upon the appearance of
Irumble, entirely waived that right. In
truth, objection had not been entered for
the very excellent reason that counsel was
ignorant of the territorial law upon the
subject. Great stress was laid upon the
proposition that the right to protest had
not expired, and several authorities in
support of the claim were cited. To the
writer, who, however, is not a legal
limb, these latter did not seem
quite applicable to the text. The
demonstration of Mr.. Patterson's theory
as to the incompetency of Trumble, and
the certainty of his infamy was prolix
and at times quite convincing. Simmered
down the disposition of his assertions in
this connection depends upon the inter-
probation of the Wyoming criminal code,
which is not very specific in this matter.
1t says that except as otherwise provid-
ed the provisions of the code of civil pro-
cedure, relative to compelling the attend
ance and testimony of witnesses n n \
shall extend to criminal cases 30 far as
they are in their nature applicable" The
civil code is wide in its scope. 1t sets
forth that AL persons are competent