, 1889-10-10


loilr or five days after the first day.
had no order for them. I went down
and told Gillespie l wanted TO eat and
did So ! was there about three times Il
day. used toseo Inglis there. I never
saw Hayward inside | did not see any
drinking going on.
Court adjourned until r, NJ.
IN THE AFTERNOON.
The first witness called by the defense
in the afternoon was Mrs. +, Gilbert,
who testified: | live in the same yard
with Mr.. Gillespie; was living there at
the time of the fire. My husband is in
British Columbia. asked Mr.. Gillespie
TO get me some goods and he did so. !
offered to pay him for them, but he
would not accept anything, lie got me
goods perhaps d dozen times. Some OF
the goods were placed in my cellar and
some In Mr.. Gillcspie's, my cellar being
Gillespie's cellar rs | needed them. My
grocer and meat market were burned
out and | could not get anything to eat
have three children, aged 10, Is and 20
My oldest son lost his situation. | had
two boarders and they were burned out
and could not pay their their board
The goods received consisted of hams,
coffee, tea, sugar, rice canned goods, s,etc.
! also received cabbages and peaches,
The cabhages were spelling
Cross.examined: | got five or six
hams-don't know just how many. !
don't know how much sugar ! got; 1t
was granulatcd sugar, lrhe witness was
asked concerning the price of provisions,
and she answered that she was not fa-
miliar with prices, Do not know the
price of butter. The defense objected to
making an expert of the witness to
prove the price of groceries The court
said she could answer, If she knew, as to
tho price of the goods she received.
Witness did not know the price of hams
and groceries, as shepaid her bills by the
month.
Mr.. Warren called on me since the fire
and asked me If anybody sent me any
goods from the relief tent, and told
him no. | told him this because Mr.
Gillespie brought me the goods himself
and did not consider thar anybody had
sent them. Defense rested their case.
j. Il. Van Ness was called bv the
prosecution, to testify as TO the value of
butter. Defense objected; the prose-
cution had no right to reopen their case
at this point TO prove tho value of an ar
ticle not charged In the complaint. Col
onel Winston stated that they had
proven by the defendant himself that he
had received butter. hence the prosocu-
ton had right to prove its value.
Numerous authorities were quoted
and nearly an hour was consumed in
arguing the point us to whether Witness
Van Ness should he allowed to testify
as to the value of butter. Objection
overrulcd. Witness answered: Butter
Is worth from 22 to 30 cents per pound.
have been handling butter in coniunc-
ton with the grocery business for two
or three years.
Colonel Winston announced that this
closed the case for the territory.
THE ARGuMENTs.
The opening speech ON the part of the
prosecution was madc by Colonel Win
ston. his was a complaint made by
the members of the relief committee,
charging William Gillepsie with ielon.
iously taking certain specified pro-
visions. At the time of the fire there
was sent by charitable people II Ger ain
lot of goods for the relief of the sufferers
from the fire. a committee was APP
pointed by the mayor from the citizens
and council. These goods were brought
from the depot TO the tent and placed
unLer the charge of Harry &. Hayward.
The defendant lost nothing by the fire.
lie was not one OF those Tor
whom the goods were sent.
He was on the police force
drawing q salary of $50 per month. He
had carried goods to his house to the
by unimpeachable witnesses. The
prosecution had proven that Mr.. Giles
pie took II load of goods to Mr.. Duebcr' $
house, and shortly thereafter, in the
night time, he had removed the good,
to his own house. fle had told one OF
the expressmen that the goods had been
taken to Ducbcr's house by mistake,
when the truth of the matter was that
he had taken them there himself This
had hpnta lttrrArtrflnl
the eXpressman had tried to peep into
the cellar, but had not been permitted
to do so. No one had even thought that
in this hour of great trial any one would
be guilty of piliering the supplies sent
for the relief of the distressed. In the
confusion of delivering the goods there
was no necessity for secrecy on the part
OF any one desiring to steal them. Even
II only petty larceny were proven IL was
Within the power of the justice, if in his
opinion the evidence should warrant it,
to bind defendant over. A great deal had
been said about the custom under the
tent. If defendant had a right to take
goods on the Withcrspoon order and by
other means, why did he pay Inglis $5i
An agent had no authority to exceed his
authority and give away the goods OF
his master. Defendant had been given a
blank order by Mr. Witherspoon. In.
stead of there coming whole carload oi
goods for the fire department, the de
Tense had proven by their own witncsse,
that there came in one corner of a car 4
small dab of goods addressed to Chic
Witherspoon, "ior the benefit ot the
fire sufferers" The goods which came
addressed to Witherspoon and the goods
received by Gillespie were widely
by Gillespie were included in the list re-
ceived by Withcrspoon except some
canned goods. Surprising the Wither'
spoon order had been signed by tht
committee themselves, and had used this
device to- steal other goods ho could not
he protected by the order. The defend
ant claimed to have received goods tc
distribute TO the poor and yet the
best he could do In support of this
bor lady, the keeper of a clearinghouse,
who had stated on the stand that she
had received goods from Mr.. Gillespie
on at least dozen different occasions
among the goods she had received were
half dozen hams. Gillespie admitted
having taken only half dozen alto
gether; he had either given her all ht
had for himself or he had procured hall
dozen more. Did Gillespie get yl5t
effort had been made to put some o.
these goods upon all the policemen and
upon as many other people us possible
In order that the great steals would not
be unearthed through fear of sm'rchine
people who received goods innocently
These provisions had been tracked to
the possession OF this defendant. Thi'
was a crime worthy of all investigation
If the people did not investigate such
crimes as these they would be neglect
ing "A duty which they owed to justice
to purity, to humanity and to God.
| GILnnnI ~ Eeinhnn followed OIL