Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-08-06
THEY THINK GUY Is HONEST.
More Testimony Today a. to the Lieu
tenants Reputation.
THE TRIAL ADJOURNED TO sArURpAY-REBuT
TING BLOCKS TEsTIMoNY- POLICEMEN TRY II
LOOK INTO HEROES UPPER WINDOW, BUT "a,
THEY CANNOT DO IT.

LOOK INTO HERZo0's UPPER WINDOW, But SAT-
THEY CANNOT DO IT.
"What IL his reputation for veracity in the
| community in which he resides?" or "what lie his
reputation with the people with whom he most
| associates?" or ..what is his general reputation
| for veracity2" All three Of these questions
we're asked by Mr.. Claughton, counsel for the
| defense in the Guy trial, yesterday afternoon.
in his attempt to impeach the character Of a
witness who had give evidence against Lieut.
Guy. So much discussion arose as to the
proper question to ask witness that the court
took an adjournment until this morning at 10
| o'clock in order to give the lawyers an
opportunity to prime themselves on the legal
points involved. When the Commissioners
entered the board room this morning they
found the two lawyers all armed for the fray.
Mr.. Hazelton had rather the advantage in
point OF numbers, for he had four formidable
yellow-covered legal books arrayed on the table
in front OF him. while Mr.. Claughton had only
! three, but he had air of confidence about
him. Mr.. Douglass. who has been ill for some
days with an attack OF lumbago, was able to be
down town yesterday and to be ut the trial, and
was present again today and announced that
the lumbagO was rather better, but still far
from all right"
SAYS he Is MAN OF HONOR.
Mr.. Richard Smith was the first witness
called to testify to Lieut. Guys good character
outside OF the police force. In answer to Mr.
Claughton's queries Mr.. Smith testified that
he had always known Guy as an efficient and
able officer and a man of honor. Mr.. Hazel
ton said he really must object to the calling Of
an indefinite number of witnesses to prove the
same thing, as this would prolong the case be-
yond all reasonable limits. Mr.. Douglass said
that they would wait until they had got fairly
into the matter and by the time five or six wit
had haap called Inv xot,11 think abon<
calling halt.
sHURLAND AND MRS M'DoNALD.
Officer Shurland was recalled and asked by
Mr. Claughton if he knew a Mrs. Mcdonald Of
X street. He said that he had seen her once
or twice at her house. He denied that he was
drunk on the night Of December "a, when
Lieut. Guy is said to have given the orders
about raiding Mrs. Boyd's house.
Mrs. Mary Mcdonald was next called and
said that she had seen Shurland several times.
She said: ''One time he came to my house to
get my husband to 60 to work at the Govern
ment Printing Office, where they were very
busy at the time While waiting for my hus-
band to come in he said: You know me, don't
you? am Shurland, that got into
trouble in Lieut.. Guys precinct l told him
was sorry he had gotten in trouble and he
answered that he never would have gotten into
any trouble at all that night if he had Obeyed
Guys orders But, he said, he went off that
he had no blame for Lieut. Guy at all, as it was
his own fault.
Mr.. Hazeton tried to overthrow this story,
as it impeached some of the most damaging
testimony that has been given against Guy in
this case. Mrs. Mcdonald held her own very
well in the matter and told d straight
story. She said that she had not talked
about this case with any one. but she had seen
the testimony in the papers that had been
given against Guy and felt that she could con-
fru1 IPt NIL fhatu civ uc1a
bered very well the conversation with Officer
Shurland, in which he had told story decd-
edly different from that he had told in this
trial. She was willing to testify, too, for she
had always considered Lieut. Guy gentleman
and good officer.
THE DEBATED QUESTION
Samuel s. holland, Waterman, was next
called to testify to question of character
This started the discussion as to what was the
proper question to ask a witness, and Mr..
Claughton at once arose and referring to the
discussion of yesterday read several extracts
from his authorities on evidence and proceeded
to argue the point Mr.. Hine reminded him
that this was not a court and that common law
might hold here az we'll as state law. Mr.. Ha-
zelton argued the other side of the question.
Mr.. holland, do you know Burgess?" asked
Mr.. Claughton.
Eyes, sir, for a long time"
'Do you know what is his genera; reputa-
mo, sir, do not know what it il now, as he
is out of my ward"
"Was it more than five years ago that you
knew him?"
81 suppose So"
"What was his general reputation when he
was on the police force in Georgetown in your
ward?'
MIR. Hazelton objected on the point of time,
as the question Is, What is the reputation of
Burgess the witness in point, at the present
IYnA hr nfrIa
take sides on the question, but it was allowed
to go under protest and subject to being
stricken out In the near future.
His reputation was bad" said holland when
he was allowed to answer. He told of his va
rious experiences with Burgess and his reason
for believing his reputation to have been bad
at the time he knew him. He also said he had
frequently heard Burgess reputation spoken
OF by the people in the community.
What did they say?' asked Mr.. Claughton.
Mr.. hazelton objected. as usual, and more
legal arguments ensued that appeared to inter-
est the audience considerably less than the SEN
sational testimony that has been given at va
rious other hearings IN this case.
holland concluded that it was from the
speech of people generally that he came to tie
conclusion that Sergt. Burgess reputation for
truth and veracity was bad. He also said that
he had heard Burgess swear falsely in the
Police Court on one occasion when he had
prisoner on trial.
MAJOR MoRdANs TESTIMONY
Major Morgan was next called to the stand
and testified to his relations with Lieut.. Guy,
who was sergeant while Major Morgan was
superintendent. Of police.
What was your opinion Of Guy as an off,
cer?''
HE was good and faithful officer and dis
charged his duties well. never had occasion
to reprimand him or discipline him in any
way"
THE Ex-CoMMIssIoNERs,
Ex-Commissioner Webb was called by Mr..
Claughton and stated that during his residence
in Lieut.. Guys precinct and his experiences
with him officially he had always found him
good officer and had never heard anything
against his character.
Ex-Commissioner West was called and sworn
by Commissioner Douglass. He stated that he
had known Guy since 1882 and that his official
reputation SO far as he had ever known him
| was good He said that his testimony would
only go to corroborate that of the preceding
witnesses as to Guys character.
"If during Shuriand's testimony anything
had been developed against Lieut. Guy in the
| line OF unofficial conduct would you not have
| ordered IL to be investigated?'
| II would II 1t had come to my knowledge"
"But nothing OF the sort was done?'
| mo, SIR"
OTHER TESTIMONY TO GUYS REPUTATION,
| 7. G. Lansdell was next summoned for the
defense. Mr.. Lansdeil is the superintendent
OF the Washington Gas Light Company, and
his place OF business 10 in Lieut. Guys pre-