The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-13

There is some hope for the prosecu-
ton in the county Doodle cases. Coun-
ty Attorney Whittemore has practically
fallen out of the prosecution, at least
in the Morris case, and Mr.. Varian
assisted by Mr.. George J.. Nye are con
Quoting the prosecution ably. The fea-
ture yesterday in the case against
ex-Selectman Morris was the examina-
ton Of Martin Hayken, who was on the
stand most of the afternoon and will
again take that place this morning.
He appears to be making a full con-
sion and if his testimony can be cor
roborated it will go hard with the de-
PENDANT. Hayken tells all about how
the business was worked and according
to his story Morris and others were to
receive 20 per cent of the gross price
of $54,973.S5 paid by the county for the
furniture aid other sums which have
not yet been explained running the to-
tai UP to about $4,000, which, according
TO Hayken, was added on to the regu-
lar price charged for the material.
The letters written by Morris to Hay
ken make good amusing reading and
materially Ivened up things in the
court room during the day. Both pros
ecution and defense promise more SEN
sations today.
THE PROCEEDINGS
The proceedings opened by the prose
cution placing on the stand II. Y. Me
10y, who. examined by Mr. Whittenore,
said he was clerk Of the county court
81 Salt Lake county in the years 1898
and 1894 He identified the contracts
entered into between Andrews & Co.
and the coul " for the furniture foS
the county's portion of the joint build
ing. There Were two contracts dated
March 6, 1894 and May Z, 1894 Judge
Powers objected 10 their being admit
ted in evidence on the ground that they
We're irrelevant, incompetent and i'm
material He also objected to the in
PRODUCTION OF the schedule or detailed
list of the furniture supplied on the
same grounds.
Both objections were overruled and
the documents were put in evidence.
The minute books eli the county court
showing appropriations to Andrews &
CO. as follows, were introduced June
10, 1894. $4,000; July 80. 1894, So, 300; Au-
gust q. 1894, $1,000; November %, 1894, ,
$54,97S.S5.
E. E. SWINEY.
Z. E. Swiney said he was in the fur /
niture business in Chicago and had 1
been so for twenty years. The witness /
testified and it was admitted over the /
objection of Judge Powers that he I
had examined the furniture supplied /
and estimated its value at not to ex-
coed SIG, 392, as compared with $54973.S5 /
the amount paid for it.
Judge Powers insisted on the witness /
reading the schedule through item by (
stem and Mr.. Swiney labOriously read 1
TO the court, the jury and the stenog-
rapher list of the chairs, desks tables |
and everything down to the cuspidors
with his valuation Of each article. while
the attorneys strolled around the court
room and indulged in friendly chats.
Judge Powers then cross-examined
obe witness-on many Of the items. par
ttcularly as to their value compared
with the price paid by the city and the
board of education for similar articles.
bat witness could give little infoima-
ton on the point, not being familiar
with the schedules CT the furniture sup
piled 20 the city and the board of edu-
cation. Witness said he manufactured
furniture in q small way in Chicago
and during the past year employed on
am average eighteen or twenty men.
He received S25 q day from Mr. Whit
tsnlore while employed in the work of
making a valuation Of the furniture
supplied 10 the county. He had been
to Salt Lake three times on the bust
ness connected with these cases. He
did not engage in it for the purpose of
gratifying spite against Andrews &,
Co. He had no III feeling against
them He came to Salt Lake because
he was asked to assist Mr. Whittemore
by friends in Chicago
Mr.. Whittenore was a genial and
pleasant host who had always treated
witness nicely
Your visits have then been pleasant
and prohtable2' asked Judge Powers.
Not very profitable; they consumed
too much time replied the witness.
How long have you known Martin
Hayken?"
Several years. He was a decorative
painter when first knew him. but |
didn't know he was engaged in the fur ;
nlture business until came to Salt
Lake
Have you any i'll feeling towards !
Hayken?"
mo. none whatever"
MORE TESTIMONY WAS TO VALUE
w. E. Kinnersh. an employee of the
Dinwoodey Furniture company tes-
b-ACO eA1ol nc -4cO CAdi1ilutQ The IuFn1-
ture in the city and county building |
and the prices charged for the movea-
BILE portion of it. He considered the
movable portion worth S14, 1860.
w. M. Williams said he had been in
the furniture business for fourteen
years. He considered the movable fur
niture supplied to the county worth
Sl4,796.09. These figures were a little
lower than Swiney's estimate of the
same material. =
) H. J. Haywood, Of the Salt Lake
Building & Manufacturing company,
had examined the stationary portion of :
Inc furniture and estimated its value