The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-02-08
HILLMUN BROTHER-IN-LAW

Fierce1y Cross Examined by Mr.. Hutch-
ings-Live1y Racket Between Attorneys.
Notwithstanding the severe weather,
the court house was crowded yesterday
with people eagerly listening to the ex-
citing evidence that was given, and the
fierce onslaught between the opposing
counsel as to the admisslbility of certain
evidence. 1t was day of great excite
ment. and the spectators evidently en-
ioyed it
Upon Mr.. Nichols, Hillmon's brother
in-law, again taking the stand, Mr..
Hutchings, for the plaintiff, cross-exam-
ined him most fercely, and suggested
that here was a man coming into the
court room tor the purpose of swearing
away the life of his brother-in law and
by implication accusing him of the helm
our crime of murder, and of trying to
defraud the insurance companies. Mr.
Nichols denied this, stating that he had
not read the pleadings, and that the only
questions he supposed was under discus
sion, was whether the body brought to
Lawrence and claimed to be that of John
w. Hilimon, and upon which an inquest
was held, was the body of Hillmon, or
that of some other man; and that in his
judgment the body was not that of Jonn
w. HiIlmon, his brother in law, but of
some other person whom he had never
seen. Witness still insists, not
withstanding the severity of the
cross examination, that John w.
Hillmon and he were the exact
same height, namely. five feet nine
inches, and from this statement he could
not be moved. That he knew his own
height was five feet nine inches, as he
had been measured in court at the first
trial of this case, and that he had meas
ured the mark himself which was made
over his head. Mr.. Hutchings tried to
draw out of witness that he had been
coached by the defendants attorneys, by
reading or having read to him his evil
dence given at the previous three trials
of this case, but this Mr.. Nichols posi-.
lively denied.
The defense then offered to read the
testimony given at a previous trial, of
Col. Samuel Walker, now dead, to which
Mr.. Hutchings for the plaintiff strongly
objected, urging that the evidence had to
be read by Mr.. Poponoe, the stenographer
who took it. Messrs. Isham, Barker,
Ware and Smith replied on behalf of de-
plaintiff had called Mr.. Poponoe, the
stenographer, who took the evidence for
the defense at one of the previous trials,
put him on the stand, had him swear to
the correctness of the evidence so taken,
and were allowed by the defense to read
therefrom, without objection, the evidence
of certain witnesses who plaintiffs attor-
neys claimed to be dead or out of the
jurisdiction of this court, and that now,
when the defendants wished to use this
same book. just as the plaintiff had done,
they interpose trivial and vexatious objec-
tions, knowing them to be such, and ac-
cused plaintiffs attorneys of piraticaI
practices. Quite lively wordy fight took
place between tie attorneys, much to the
amusement of the jury and spectators
The court finally said that the decision
was a most important one, and that if he
decided wrongly, would be good ground
for reversal of the case, and decided to
consider the matter more fully before
coming to final decision.
The defense then insisted that If they
could not read Col Walkers evidence,
that the testimony of DR.. Fugit and Ar