The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-14
SHRINKING CASE.
This One is Against Harry Haynes
Alone.

This One is Against Harry Haynes
Alone.
The next case taken up was against
Harry Haynes alone and the indict-
ment charges that during the month
of September. 1894 in sprinkling a GER
tain public street known as State
road at an agreed price of $3.45 for
each working day of eight hours,
that the defendant instead of sprink-
ling eight hours a day only sprinkled
three hours a day and with intent
to defraud the county, presented and
swore to a claim of $103.5O. well know
ing that more than one half of said
claim was fraudulent and false.
TESTIMONY OFFERED.
Charles WEIGH was the first witness
called by the prosecution. In reply to
Mr.. Whittemore he testified that ne
drove a sprinkling cart for the defend
ant and that he sprinkled morning
and evening and that if ne failed to
sprinkle in the afternoon somebody
else did. When he finished sprinkling
or around the barn. He didn't sprinkle
on rainy days. Witness sprinkled pro-
baby four and one-half or five hours
a day and somebody else sprinkled in
the afternoon.
Mr.. Whittemore seemed surprised at
the testimony of this witness and
questioned him closely as to whether
he had talked with any one about the
case since the witness testified before
the grand jury. Witness denied that
he talked with anyone and said his tes-
timony now was the same as he gave
before the grand jury.
He was not cross examined.
C. Bishop testified that he sprinkled
for Mr. Haynes for a while. He worked
four or five hours in the morning and
about three hours in the evening.
No cross examination.
J. w. Maxwell was next called for,
but was absent. Mr.. Whittemore,
however, stated that he was expected
to prove that it rained eight or ten
days in September.
We admit, said Judge Powers, that
it rained hard all September if you
like.
John M. Graham was called but was
also absent.
What do you want to prove by
him?' asked Judge Powers. I'VE may
admit it,
Mr. Whitternore-We expect to prove
that Mr.. Graham worked three or four
days at sprinkling and only put in
three or four hours each day.
I'VE admit it, said Judge Powers.
Here court took a recess until 1870
O'Clock in the evening, being anxious
to finish the case.
EVENING SESSION.
John P. Cahoon, one of the ex-seIect-
men, testified that he let the contract
for sprinkling to Harry Haynes and
his action was approved by the county
court The remuneration was to be
3.45 per day, but nothing was said as
to how many hours per day he was TO
sprinkle.
Mr. Whittemore asked if it was I'M
derstood that Mr.. Haynes was to get
paid for rainy days whether he sprink-
led or not to which witness replied
that Haynes was to get $3-45 Der day
for keeping the roads Sprinkled- Some
days he had to sprinkle maybe ten or
twelve hours and others it would not
be necessary to sprinkle at all, the price
was leased on an average season as to
dryneSs or WetneSS.
Cross-examined by Judge Powers wit
ness said there was no specifications
as to how many hours day Mr..
Haynes should sprinkle, all that was
required was that he keep the dust
well laid for a price of S3.45 a day on
the portion of the State road defined
in the contract.
w. H. Atwood lived at Murray about
a block from the State road. In Sep
TENDER. 1894. sprinkling was done in
the morning.
How many hours each morning was
sprinkling done?" asked Mr.. White
more.
Objected to by Judge Powers for the
reason that according to the terms of
the contract which had been put in
evidence there was no specification as
to how many hours a day sprinkling
should be done.
Mr. Whittemore contended that ac-
cording to the act of the legislature
eight hours should constitute a days
work and Mr.. Haynes should be pun
ished because he didn't work eight
hours p day.
Judge Powers-Counsel for the state
will not ask that the jury or the court
be indicted if they don't sit eight hours
day.
Judge HiIes-The objection is sus-
tanned The matter is so plain there
can be no question about it. Under the
contract civil action would not hold
in this line. much less a criminal pro-
ceeding.
Mr. Whittemore-Under the ruling of
the court L will withdraw the witness
and ask that the case be dismissed.
Judge Powers-I ask that the jury
be instructed to return a verdict of not
guilty.
Judge Hiles-Tf this is all She evil
dence the state has 1 shall instruct the
jury 20 return a verdict of not guilty.
Mr. Whittemore said he had nothing
else to offer and the jury according to
instructions brought in a verdict Of
not guilty.
WILL DISMISS THE OTHERS.
There are two more indictments
against Haynes similar in all respects
to the one just dismissed. and there
are two against A. E. Cahoon, charg-
ing a misdemeanor because it is alleged
he didn't work eight hours a day as a
peace officer. In regard TO these Mr.
Whittemore said the probability was
that he would move for their dismis-
sal on Monday.
HAYKEN's TRIAL CONTINUED.