The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1894-09-27

Cunningham to see what Mr. {, and
DR.. Marion wanted: made an engage
nent for meeting at ; o'clock; conver
,ation lasted ten or fifteen minutes.
What can you suggest for the general
good; talk the matter; we will follow
your course
$. Lyons I, stimony.
J. :. Lyons called; Important busi-
mess: member of board of education;
know Dr. Marion, president of the
board; first met Delaney February ?,
lso4; had conversation; went into DIR
NJ. S office; he said there was a chance
to make some money Marion said !
could make $500 out Of it; had talk |
with Delaney there; asked IL ! had /
seen Geo Gray; said | would not go |
into the scheme for less than $1,000 /
aud divide with Gray; ! had told De-
laney we wanted 81, 50O did not ap-
proach any other member Of the board'
handed to MIR. Cuppage some cores
pondence: did not endeavor 60 engage
other members of the school board In
! this transaction; ] sent Mr., Cuppage
two or three kilograms at solicitation
of Delaney. regarding scheme; was
not on good terms with Marion; went
into the deal in order 70 expose sew
eral membe of the board and have
them removed: there were three mem
bers IN the deal Urban, Cuppage and
Barton came TO my place Of business;
they also vent to Gray's office at my
request: waDtei them to hand in their
designations as members of the board;
they were incompetent because they
were attempting to accept bribes; De-
laney told me; more or less i'll feeling
among mem bers of the board. (Lyons
excused
Prosecution rests
Defense Moves For "a Verdict of Not Guilty.
At the conclusion of the testimony
for the prosecution, Judge Green
moved the court to instruct the jury
to return a verdict of not guilty, on
5 the grounds that the testimony intro
: duced failed to establish the guilt OF
the accused.
The court overruled the motion
and Colonel Overstreet made state
. ment To the jury that the defense
Z would be able to explain by compe
tent evidence, all matters that seemed
to show DR.. Marion guilty, and thus
) prove that the defendant was simply
. the victim of combination of untor
. tunate circumstances which, while
having the appearance of guilt, woulC
> be entirely explained away.
The defense then offered the six in
4 dictments returned against Delaney
n and Scott reading them to the jury
In none of these indictments does tn,
name of DR. Marion appear.
>. DR. Marion Testihes.
c The defense then proceeded with /.
e testimony, DR.. Marion taking tn
n stand. The defendant being unabl
to speak above a whisper, the stenog
rapher was obliged TO repeat the testi
a mony TO the jury. The doctor gave
= history of bis acquaintance with Dal
4 Delaney. The latter had called upoI
the doctor about every two week
during the months of November, De
o cember and January last Daring
these visits Delaney simply asked 70
general information regarding tn
+. prospects of selling the school bonds
~ of the number and size of school build
'r ings to be erected, and such question
% as a prospective bidder for the contrac
a would ask. His testimony was com
,plete denial of Delaney's evidenc
" regarding any offers of bribe for hi
+ iuHuence.
= The defendant gave an account o
q the meeting at Newton. He had beeI
to Kansas City to consult physician
, regarding his health They had ad
$ vised him TO change climates and rec
r commended New Mexico or Arizona
q and il was while on his way to thos
!, territories he met Delaney at Newton
" The witness explained that he be
- lieved that unfair measure
d were tSen being taken T.
.. manipulate the letting of the contract
=, in the interest of oae firm OF contrac
~ tors. and his conversation with De
Z laney was in the nature of such in
n formation as any one would need Il
= get an even chance in the bidding fQ
-, the school houses. The witness ha,
expected to meet Cuppage at Newton
o but failing he came down to Guthrie
5; Here he had two or three interview
4 with Delaney. neither of more thar
: five minutes and at no time was an,
' reference made To the use of money L
d secure the contract for Delaney
e Scott H.. had had several converse
i: tions with Lyons on the matter of let
ting the contract. Lyons was acting
- president of the school board in tn
N absence Of the witness, and at one o
e the meetings with Lyons the Who'll
r. subject of awarding contracts wa
:, goue over The doctor had expressed
; his views fully, referred TO the difii
l. Guilty usually experienced by the boar'
Is in even trivial matters, and hoped non
of the good work accomplished woul'
=, be wasted lie had recommended tn
" firm OF Delaney Il Scott on account o
d firm having been highly endorsed by
u Architect Hadley and others, and de
II MED emphatically of ever having haC
any connection with either Delaney o
y any member of the school board /
n which any suggestions of receiving
money for awarding the contract wa
/. made.
j. Z. Barton was next called, bu
= court adjourned until today, when hi
d testimony will be taken.
c The characters in tonights amateu
Y performance are represented by som
I Al. 81. -. 81 q