The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-15
THE ALBERTSON CASE
Continued from PAGE a.

tnnfinasd from Pdcsfl
Ny business was IN the auditing department
OF the Pennsy lvania railroad
Was that the only business you had while
there7
No. sir.
What other business were you iny
In the postoftiee department In Phfladeiphfa
How long were you In the postofice depart
ment?
About going on two years
What other business were You In in Phiiadel-
phia7
/ was bookkeeper for D. s. Sch uyler Co.
and g. :. Armstrong
What business were they In!
TndertAkers
How long were you in undertaking businessf
About q year and nalf
What other business were you In while in
Philadelphia
was In the hats and caps.
How long were you in the hats and caps. and
With D, p. Kobe Co. and Bishop q Co.
How iong7
/ cannot tell exactly.
What other employment were you in while In
Philadelphia
The witness turned red and then white, ad-
dressing the court he said:
l would like to ask the court IL II IL necessary
TO go into the whole seriesf
Judge Burke-lf he has been engaged in any
criminal business he can claim the protection
OF the court.
Witness (angrfly)-Judge Burke, you ought 70
be careful yourself as regards Criminal busi-
ness.
Judge Burke laughed.
The Court-Neyer mind, gentlemen.
The witness-He knows my business, ana he
knows it TO be legitimate
Judge Burke-I want to test the credibiiity of
the witness.
all
Mr.. Smell, to witness-You had better an
swer. When think 1t is incompetent or gone
far enough I'll object.
IN hat %
The stenographer read last question
Well / can 90 as far back as 1867. | think that
year was for short time in the PInkerton
detective agency.
You were with Piukerton detective agency
Yes, sir.
You were detective?
Yes, was. (Seusalion-l
When you swore you was not detective. then
Ii was not true
say. emphatically. am not q detective
You are not now?
l am not detective
You have been detectivef
have been, sir.
You were working for Mooney q Boland in
Philadelphia
did not
You worked for q detective agency In Phila-
deiphia?
You knew l hadn't worked for Mooney Il
Boland when you proposed that question.
Didn't you work for Mooney q Boland, OF
Philadelphia?
| say emphatically no, and you know it to
be the truth.
Is 1t true or not?
have so stated there.
Witness under close questioning admitted
knowing Mooney, OF Mooney Boland very
well and Longergan, the chief detective OF the
agency
How long were you detective in the Pinker-
/ suppose. to the best OF my knowledge, a
year.
Not any longer?
iuR ma Y "a q par n
Then, as q matter of fact, you were trying
little detective business here yourself, weren't
you?
AS matter of fact, was endeavoring to get
down to the facts.
As q detective?
Not as n detectivei
Not as Il detective emphatically7
Judge Burke then asked the witness II he had
not told sullivan that R. B. Albertson was going
TO New Westminster and that a detective had
been put on to shadow him. The witness said
he had not put detective on TO shadow K b.
Albertson, but Sullivan might have done So
He had not shown Albertsons dispatch TO sulli.
van
1T WAS ANTERIOR" TINE
He was asked what time Of day he had re-
ceiyed the dispatch. He said
About anterior to 9 clock in the evening.
Anterior? That Is before O'Clock in plain
English. Before o'cloek in the evening?
You're attempting to put words in my mouth
Not at all.
Before O'Clock in the EVENING" Is that right,
| didn't catch 1t?
| don't know whether you understand the
English language. said anterior" will get
you an English dictionary.
Judge Burke made the witness admit that he
was with sullivan on the afternoon OF the alb
duetion. He said he had gone to John II. Nc
Graw with Sullivan and had told him their
story concerning r. B. Aibertson, to get him to
III II ,,
He admitted that he knew Sullivan intended
to arrest Aibertson that day.
You said in your direct examination that you
knew these agreements spoken OF as triplicate
agreements were drawn by q lawyer! asked
Judge Burke.
| ielt positive they were
And all that you had ever heard about 1t was,
sand know all men by these PRESENTS" Is
that true2 That's the oniy phraseoiogy you
ever hear IN regard 70 1T
/ would like TO state in addition right here
that Mr. AIbertson stated TO me in the acknowl-
edgmeut on the back OF the agreement In dupii-
cafe which he drew up for this gentleman, he
called ii Tacoma, kings county, instead of
Tacoma, Pierce county, thinking he was in
Seattle.
But wait moment; you stated in your direct
examination that before you saw tx. b. Albert
son that the triplicate agreement was drawn by
an Attorney
phraseoiogy and from the receipt OF the letter
which / eudeavored 10 have copy introduced,
which was finally accepted
You never saw tine trlpucate agreement
| did not, emphatically.
How DO you know anything about the
phraseology OF the instrument which you never
saw-you are not spiTituaIist. are YOU?
Perhaps none more SO than you are.
Then how did You know the phraseology OF
an instrument that you never saw?
BY its having been gone over to the best
knowledge and belief OF those who read it,
taxing their word
You heard the testimony on the stand of the
men who read Ii?
did not was not here, only for q little
while.
Well, It appeared that Mr.. Wallace and Mr..
Powell and Mr. Campbell were the men who
saw ii, and they swore they could not give the
1T ZzxnorEH~