The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-06-25
ON HIS DIGNITY.
Squires Tells His Version Of the
Bribery Business.
He Denies That He Ever Wanted a Bride.
Corraborative Evidsnce-Cautioned
by the Judge.

Public interest in the Squires embTacery
case continues undated. Judge Murphy's
courtroom was crowded all day yesterday
when the hearing of the case was resumed.
The defendant was again accompanied by
his wife and adopted daughter. The pretty
little girl did not seem to be at all impressed
with the gravity of the proceedings but
Mrs. SQuires was alert and watchful.
Squires was cool and collected. and while
giving his evidence was as garrulouS as al old
maid. During his cross-exaniuation By the
District Attorney be was cautioned by the
Judge DOT to be impairment. but to confine
himself TO answering the questions put to
him. Much Interest was centered in tall,
graceful young lady dressed in black,
who appeared to be on very friendly terms
with the little girl. She turaed out TO be a
witness in the case
The proceedings were opened by the cross
examination of Attorney J. F. Smith by
Mr.. Wbaley. defendants attorney. Wit
ness testified that he went to Squires' store
on the morning Of the 18th inst. to see il
SQUiTes would make an offer, but not to in
duce him to do so. Squires offered TO pro-
cure votes for witness client for $500, and
was 10 go and see other jurors before 10
o'clock to see il they could be Influenced
without money. SqulTes said he could not
take any money jus; then because CONVEX
satiOn had been overheard, but IL no other
arrangements could be MADE he would trust
witness for the $500 until after the verdict.
Witness denied that he went to defendants
store to get him into a trap. nor did he want
to buy any jurors His real purpose was to
find out if Squires would actually undertake
to bride the jury.
J. f. MuraSky, law partner of Attorney
Smith. testified that he had first heard of
SQuires' efforts to bride the jury from At
tOTney Chickerng and had reported the
matter to judges Sanderson and Hunt
This closed the case for the prosecution.
THE DEFENSE.
Attorney Whaley. after open ing the case
for the defense, called the defendant,
Squres. Defendant testified that he is 90
years of age and came from Connecticut
He lived in Nevada from 1860 TO 1880. In
1869 he was convicted OF highway robbery
and sentenced 10 "A years imprisonment.
After serving IL years months and 10 days
he was pardOned. He denied that he was
the leader OF the gang that committed the
robbery. SQures then detailed his cGn-
VeTSatiOns with Chinaman who had aD-
preached him when be was on TIE jury ia
Judge SandersOn's court. He refused 10
have any dealings with the Chinaman and
ordered him out of bis store.
Referring to Chickering's visit to his
store on the 9th, he asserted that he told
Chickering he would not take any money,
anu lUdIN tOtDdGe ltul 10 Htnu Nj. Oultl
or any ole else 10 him. Smith called at his
store next morning and said he was willing
TO give $500 for favorable verdict. Wit
ness told him 10 let the matter drop right
there. He was Late in getting 20 court that
morning and before he had chance to say
anything The attorneys had made their
statements, and Judge Sanderson stopped
him when he offered to make an eXplana-
ton, saving he would have an opportunity
later On. He had never intended to take
bride. and had sat on juries where $4,000
was al stake, and he thought all his fellow
jurors would hold him up.
The defendant was cr0Ss-eXamined by the
District Attorney, but stuck closely to his
evidence in chief. He was persstenily
pressed TO give a definite answer 10 the
question, why didn't you refuse to hold
any conversation with MIR. Smith when you
knew he was attorney in the case and must
have known what he had called upon you
about p All witness would say was that
ne could not know what he had come about
until he mentioned it then, he told Smith he
did not want to talk TO him on the subject.
He did not say that he did not want to have
conversations with more than one man.
THE DEFENDANTS WIFE.
Mrs. Kate Squres. defendants wife, cor
rObOrated her husbands story about Chick
eTings visit on the evening Of the 9th. She
was asked TO leave the room, but walked
round the counter aud sat on fOOtstoOl I'M
seen by Cbicketing or the defendant and
heard ali the conversation. She heard the
offer Of $500 made and the jingle Of money.
She told her husband that il any more men
came TO the store about the case she would
horsewhip them. On the morning of the
9Th when Smith called she was absent from
the store Witness was crOss-eXamined at
considerable length, but her evidence was
not materially shaken.
Netue Steele, who for the past two years
had worked of and on for Mr. and Mrs.
Squires, gave cOrroborative evidence as 10
the conversation between defendant and
Smith on the morning Of the 9TH. She was
I'D q back room, the door Of which was ajar.
The defendants attorney offered the EVIL
dence of T. J. Ford, plumber. who had been
a fell0w-juroT with Squires on three Panels.
but the Judge ruled that such evidence must
be confined to the jurors in the Chinamen's
case.
ThereupOn F. P Remington. J. C. Cor
bitt, n N. Jacobs, Nelson Lyon, Jacob
Weiss, W. J. Magner. Cyrus Tyler ard
John Etachi. who were jurors on that case,
severally testified thar SquiTes never made
any improper approaches 10 them as to how
a verdict should be given.
Michael Kelly, J. Sweeney, William J.
Rogers and J. a. Slater, who lad business
dealings with defendant during the past
three years, gave eviden e as to character,
and the case for the defense was closed.
The District Attorney asked for adjourn
bring Chiekering and Smith to give evidence
in rebuttal.
At o'clock court was adjourned till
NJ onday morning at 10 o'clock
-