, 1888-07-24
PATTERSON TESTIFIES.
The Defendant Again Tells His
Story.
1t is the Same as on the Former
Trial.
Other Matters Pertaining to the
Murder Case.

point where attorneys and all Others in
terested therein-except the iury-can
see their way out Of the woods.
Court convened at the usual hour yes
terday morning and when Judge Magin-
mis- assumed the bench there was some
expectation that the testimony would all
be taken during the day, hut delays oc-
CURED and this result did not attend yes.
terday's proceedings. The defense had
introduced considerable testimony on Sat
urday and yesterday forenoon the defend
ants attorneys, Messrs. Patterson 4
Fisher. followed it up by expert testi-
mony in response to that introduced on
the part of the prosecution.
DIR. w. w. Crook and DR.. s. j. Gum
by took the stand and testified regarding
the probable age of deceased as indicated
by the skeleton. They were both of the
opinion that deceased was at least 80
years of age and probably somewhat
older. They also testified quite speci-
fcally regarding the various parts of the
skeleton, and while not claiming to be
professional analomists, they had both had
considerable experience.
The defense offered to place in evidence
the testimony given by the witness
Cridge on the last trial, on the ground
that testimony taken which was in the
nature Of a deposition could be used on a
subsequent trial where the witness who
gave it had gone out of the jurisdiction of
the court.
The prosecution objected to this of
course, and a long argument followed,
Mr.. Campbell. who was assisting Mr..
Stoll yesterday, taking past in the discus
sion On behalf of the territory.
The outcome OF this question was that
the court held the testimony to be admis-
sible provided it could be shown that the
attendance of the witness Cridge could
not be obtained. Mr.. Patterson there
upon made a professional statement to
the effect that the defendant is now with
out mean to procure the attendance of
Cridge, and in addition thereto that he
had received assurances that Crldge being
o outside the Jurisdiction of the court
would not come unless his expenses for
attendance were paid or guaranteed him
in advance. Mr.. Patterson stated that
his attendance was only procured on the
last trial by money which he (Patterson)
advanced and that now as a matter of
fact the defendant is without means and
he claimed that this was sufficient to show
that it was impossible to procure the at
tendance of the witness. 1t TRANSFERRED,
however, that Mr.. Patterson had not
heard directly from Oridge on this sub
iect, and the court held that the facts of
the situation did not Justify the idea that
it had thus far been shown to be impossi-
bic to procure his attendance and the rul-
ing on the offer Of Cridge's testimony was
deferred.
Mr.. Patterson then offered to introduce
the evidence Of some of the witnesses to
prove that Special Deputy Sheriff
Vaughn Of Fort Laramie had testified to
a falsehood for the purpose Of showing to
the present jury that testimony had been
manufactured against the defendant.
This brought MIR. Campbell to his feet
and that gentleman protested that if any
one was responsible for the production of
a witness 1t was he (CampbelD and con-
tended that MIR. Stoll did not even know
that Vaughn was going to testify, until as
his assistant he had informed Mr., Stoll.
MIR. Patterson spoke again, and said he
did not intend to assume that the prose-
cutting attorney had been procuring wit
nesses to testify falsely.