The record-union., 1896-07-24
THE GRAHAM CASE.
Attempt to Prove an Alibi for the
Defendant.

The trial of Thomas Graham for ma
licious mischief was resumed yesterday
morning in the Police Court, the charge
being that he mutilated a building that
the Sullivan Kelly Company was paint
ing.
A NJ. Seymour made the opening
statement for the defense, and Joe
Nevis testified that he heard no vulgar
language during the alteration between
Foreman Baker and Graham.
F. Windrick testified that a man came
to the building on the morning
of the day on which the mutt
lation was done and asked If
ing, and if they were painting any other
buildings. He said he wanted a job.
Witness had never seen him since. Gra-
ham was not the man.
Witness denied that he knew young
man named E F. Rolf or that he bor-
rowed chisel from I;olff at any time
or that he lost any borrowed chisels
City Attorney Brown produced a chis-
el and asked the witness if he had ever
seen it before. Witness said that he
had. The City Attorney asked if he
would deny that he had borrowed it of
Rolf, and he answered that he borrowed
it of another carpenter, whose name he
did not know, who was also working
on the building. He was positive. how
ever, that he returned it to Rolf who
was working with him He used the
chiSel a short time and laid it on the
floor with Rolff's other tools. Witness
lost his own chisel on the morning of
the outrage, and had never seen it since.
His tool chest was in the house that
night and was not locked.
A. L. Wolf said that on July 9TH he
went to the Stanfield residence with the
attorneys for the defense and Miss
Stanfield said that witness was not the
man she saw She also said, when she
was shown Graham, that he was not
the man, and that she would know the
man if she saw him again. She also said
that she knew Graham was not the
man.
He did not go into the house until
Mr.. Seymour called him. He was
introduced by his own name and
was never introduced to Miss Stan
field by the name of Graham. Miss
Stanfield did not say to witness that
she would not identify the man, if she
could, as she did not wish to be mixed
up in the affair. He had known Graham
for some weeks and Lamont for about
four years. He had applied to Sullivan
& Kelly for a position, but did not get
it. He had no feeling on that account
however.
W. c. Hintz heard the conversation
between Baker and Graham. The
former told Graham to go to work and
grain the house in water colors. Graham
declined. They had hot words. but
witness did not hear Graham use the
language attributed to him. He did not
around to the back of the house At
noon Graham asked Baker to sign his
time-card, as he had quit. Baker re-
fused, saying that Dwyer was the one
who paid the men.
Witness did not fear Graham call
Baker a vile name in the cellar. He
worked at one time for Sullivan & Kelly,
but they were complaining that the
work was getting along slowly, and he
was let off.
There was some testimony offered by
the defense to establish an alibi. One
witness testified to having been with
Graham up to O'Clock on the afternoon
the mischief was done. and a restaurant
waiter said Graham had supper in the
place where he is employed at $50
o'clock
importance the case went over until to-