The evening world., 1894-08-31
STEPHENSON'S CASE.
All the Evidence Against Him Hn
Now Been Submitted.

nee Oval of Capt. John T.. Stephen
rice SI2, s. commission "s house. i'm in
q, go r :; :; ; s: a: e:
wax ,e,s y esterdny. were in bust
ness win Edwards, and that he made
50 barrel Of apples and the four
boxes OF peaches were sent UP to Capt.
he testified that the entries were
transcripts from the day book. kept by
Y ho@ss =. wsnaee. one of the com;
that he had been commission merchant
sss, Snd lived at S' d MHn
business at " Reade street, where. In
1891. he was introduced In neighborins
store TO Ordinance Man James I. Kelly;
what hts neighbors said when he intro.
duced Kelly. but Mr.. Shafer objected
and brought Mr.. Wellman into long
the question.
well, what did. Kelly say to your"
Mr.: Weliman asked.
grounds that what Kelly said could not
possibly be set down against Stephenson
But this time the Board overruled the
| objection, and the witness said:
kelly told me he would be around
after my money tomorrow. The next
Gay he came z. around a, and / gave him 'a5
produced and they showed that on Feb.
Police Captain; .25" Their, was SINH
Mr. shafer objected that the witness
could not substantiate his story by max
Ing an entry In his books.
same as the first time." cut in the wit
| ness
Cross-examinlng. Mr.. shafer asked:
son regarding the matter, and don't
or not?"
"Then that entry In your book. cash
to Captain. s25, was incorrect?"
Well, / suppose It was. technically"
adt iRa he had seen tue Using tss
and and then hen Mr.. shafer tested him morally.
mIt,ins State p Prison moi ofrsnse When 'S You
We'll, suppose ! vas"
| committed a crime IL as much to be
believed as a man who has not?"
~ think that sometimes the end Jus
tines the means. Sometimes we cannot
Il like. your candor, Mr. Wallace"
did witness we have had. You frankly
| v,
committed bribery. and Justify 1t. You
NJ: Wcllmsp put in evidence the rec,
ord showing that Capt. Stephenson was
from Dec. 5. 1890. to April 10. 1892.
Charles w. Maxfield, another complain
ant; came next to the stand. He was In
October, 1891, Kelly visited him,
Kelly spoke OF the sidewalk matter.
was encumbering the sidewalk accord
l,,,K he trtt ntl Inn of tha In sat
| upon It by the police, but not according
to our construction.
Kelly said 1t would cost us se5 year.
paid abe SIS to. him. placing 1t in his
hand In money. used no envelope. He
turned up ag9in. a year afterwards and
On the Differentiation, Maxfieid
said he was located at 1872 Reade street
Then You We're not violating the
wei, not to any extent"
"oh, Just little. Not much but Just
"But that s s was a violation and so you
mo. ! didn't look upon It as such.
was ignorant Of that aspect OF the law,
yoS knew sa ke gr III The
stop YOU violating. the law. didn't you?"
II supposed he had the power to stop
4, and supposed he wanted to settle
Then arose a discussion between, coun-
sci as to whether the police could ar
rest for ordinance violation.
Mr.. Shafer read the sections covering
the point. showing that II was the sworn
duty Of a policeman to arrest any per
son who violated the ordinance In his
presence, but that. II the policeman does
not see the violation committed, then he
must proceed In civil suit to recover the
penalty prescribed in Civil Justices
court.
A remarkable development OF the trial
of Capt. Stephenson lis that these com.
mission merchants: who have been all
ey Ess IA he Of ,se law snd ord
nances the subject of sidewalk en-
cumbrances.
Wellman again he asked for the rest OF
that first conversation with Kelly. Mr.
Shafer objected. but the witness was per
mitted to answer.
He said the money was for the Cap
tain, He said II wanted the privilege
Of obstruct,nE, the sidewalk would have
Charles f. Maxheld. a son of Com
plainant Char.es w Maxfield. next test
/. ned that he had seen Ordinance Mar
Kelly at his fathers store.
Ibid you see your father pay money
; to Kelly?" Mr. Wellman asked.
No. sir, | can't positively say did,
replied the young man,
Mr.. Wellman was evidently surprised
. Mr.. Carothers. who sat behind hts chief
bent forward and laying, paper befor
! him put his II, i i! on a line ., NJ vor
, Sou ioi6ee NhiS' nii' " GU
l man asked
+, Hold on. objectr shouted Mr.
? Shafer. The learned public proseculo
, has no right to ASH Questions from 1
paper Att, j., a,,. , NJ
Wrllman.
70 Then he got an admission from younl
= MaXneld that II was his signature APP
h pended to u paper he held In his hand
= FOR the witness added:
II don't know that ! have said any
4 thing in contradiction to that affidavit.
J, After reading the affidavit the witness
4 said:
Y II may have been present when m.
q father paid the money to Kelly, but
n have no recollection. What that am
davit means Is that the business wa
y In my name. and the money paid on
: OF my business
n MIR Wellman tried to show that Ken
:, got SIS yearly from the MaNfelds. bu
y Mr., Shafer objected TO going outside Q
n the specific charge OF bribery on one da
h In 1891.
e Mr.. shafer got the admission on tn
i record that all young Maxfield kneN
!, about Il was ;hat his father told hir
n he had paid 81 TO Kelly.
n Enos {. Palmer. another complainant
testified that "A week or ten days afte
Is he opened commission house at II
n Reade street. In January, 1882. a ma
a visited the store.
z He said he was James Kelly the oil
n dinance man from that precinct, an
,e that to save all trouble and annoyanc
8 from the police for obstructing the side
- walk | had better do the rest di,
IL would cost 50 year for the oil
Mo tNN al