Telegram-herald., 1891-07-23
AtDRIDl NuCWUNPISH
Because the Court Would Not Try
tho Railway Company.
WITNESS OAElL SLIGHTLY RlTILED
The Testimony OF several Witnesses kssd
and sisnsa aud Then Csart Aa-
jearnea-tise sf the kespss-
aeats discharged


for examination yesterday IN the police
court. Ther. MAS not any particular
excitement created by new develop
meats. nearly the entire day being &C
cpp,ed IN reading the direct testlmon y
rs given on the stand by witnesses for
the prosecution. In the afternoon,
after the reading and signing OF
o'Nesrs testimony, supt. Eastman was
recalled by Lawyer Mcbride. The first
question asked was: Ibid YOU have
any information tnat there Was gong
TO be trouble al. the North End Oh the
morning OF June lo'' The prosecuting
attorney objected. Mcbride said:
"Your honor, there ia n very substan-
tial reason why this question should be
answered. | think tnat | have IN my
possession sufficient proof TO show that
the police knew of the affair before the
respondents themselves DID, and mat
the dynamite plot was insugated
by the street car company ana
carried out 10y It's minlons.' Inc
court remarked that there had
been considerable talk about the rail-
road company being connected with
the Sweet street affair, but that there
had been nothing OF the KIND brought
out IN the evidences which had been ln-
troduced, and therefore he would sus-
tam the objection. Mcbride wanted 10
know who told the superintendent,
what WAS SAID, and all about II, but II
was objected to and the ohJtction sus-
tanned. Exceptions were taken by Nc
Bride and placed on the record TO the
effect that the court had refused 10
allow questions to be asked which
would show that the whole dynamite
plot was the work OF the street car
company and that all OF the respon-
dents were dupes.
witness O'Neal Recalled.
ONeal WAS recalled and Lawyer Dun
nam attempted to impeach his testl-
mony. driving in his opening wedge by
asking the witness IT he aid not state
when previously on the stand that he
uult tine union because he did not re-
receive the pay which he thought
he was entitled to. ONcai SAID
it WAS true and then Dunhxm
labored assiduously to get tho witness
tangled up and make him contradict
himself. Failing la accomplishing this
Durham asked O'Neal how long 1t WAS
since he had been told If he came OH
the stand and gave all he knew about
the conspiracy that he would secure a.
good Job. O'Neal denied that any
thing of the kind had ever been said
TO him. The witness said Obi had
spoke two or three times. Mcbride:
"DId you ever hear Duly make any
speeches advocating violence" O'Neal:
"At first he was against doing any
thing violent, hut later be told them
to 60 ahead" Mr.. Mcknight: "Name
the men who were gong up 10 de-
stroy the cable that Saturday night"
O'Neaf: "A man named Finley told
me he was there, hut that is the only
one whom l can remember" Nc
Bride: WAS You up there with Fin
lew" "No SIR" THAT was the at
tempt to destroy the cable under
the Coldbrook st. bridge, was it
not?' Suppose it Was" WAS
YOU there?' ''No SIR "Why did
YOU go mp TO the North End?" Ibid not
know what was going To happen"
"Dld you know of any other men VINO
went up there for any other purpose
than YOU didr' Heard It talked over
on the street by some of them"
"Then you knew what you were gong
up there for?" '.l-es ar" "Now, why
did you swear minute ago that you
did not know what YOU went up there
for?' THIS was clincher and some
what staggered the witness. 1t was
several minutes before he regained his
equilibrium. Mcknight wanted to
know who the parties were that he
heard talking about the plot, but he
could not remember. MeBride-"Did
you 60 up to the railroad bridge alone?'
''No, went up with Midland" 'Did
you not testify the other day
that you went up alone?'
"Dont remember that / did,"
"lt yOp did say you went up alone
it was not true, was it?'' NO sir, il was
not true" Lieut.. Hurley was the next
witness called, and the testimony he
had given when called the second time
was read and signed. The testimony OF
Detective Kennedy was also read.
When IT came time to talk about ad-
lournment Donaldson, who until then
arose and said that he should like 10
argue the question of lIberating certain
respondents against whom DO evidence
had been doduced. The judge saId he
did not want 10 hear any argument
upon the question, as he had decided IN
his mind to discharge the following re-
sp0rdents. as there were not sufficient
grounds upon which to hold theE:
Garret KniDers. Frank klebcr, Harry
Williams, John Rapley ard Michael {.
Duffy.