The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-04-03


charged with receiving brides from
Martin Hayken in the matter of the
purchase of furniture for the county's
half of the city and county building.
Two indictments charged that Cahoon
received $50 opera chairs for use in the
Murray opera house and the stores be-
low in which he was joint owner with
Harry Haynes. The other indictment
charged that Cahoon received large
amount of money as consideration for
his vote and influence as county select
man in awarding the contract for fur
niture to A. H. Andrews & Co. of Chi
cago, of which firm Martin Hayken
was the agent.
To begin with Mr.. Whittemore asked
that the latter indictment be dismissed,
which was ordered Then he read his
affidavit for a continuance of the other
two cases The affidavit in substance
was that the prosecution could not
safely go to trial on account of the
absence of three important witnesses,
Edward E. Swiney, Edwin D. Weary
and F. w. Stratton, all of Chicago.
The prosecution expected to prove by
Weary that the value of the furniture
supplied did not exceed $27, $780, while
the county paid over S54, 900 for it. By
Swiney it was expected also to prove
that the furniture was worth only
about S27 600. Stratton was expected to
prove that the books of Andrews & Co.
showed that it cost that firm over
$21. 900 O secure the furniture con-
tract, also that the chairs and fixtures
sold the defendant were charged to
Harry Haynes in the sum of s1,670 and
without any payment having been
made by Haynes or Cahoon, credit
was made in the books of Andrews
& Co., by which the account was bal
anced.
Attorneys w. H. Dickson, Judge
Powers and Walter Murphy opposed
the continuance on the ground that the
cases had already been continued three
or four times on motion of the county
attorney and it was a manifest injus-
tice to the defendant, who had now
been under Indictment for six or seven
to postpone the trial any lon
ger.
MADE NO EFFORT TO GET HIS
WITNESSES.
Mr.. Murphy stated that the affidavit
for continuance did not show that the
county attorney had made any effort
to get his witnesses here and as a mat
ter of fact, the present motion was sim
ply in pursuance of a statement made
by the county attorney that he would
not, if he could avoid it. try any more
of these cases before the present panel
of jurors, and his motion for contin-
uance was simply ruSe by which the
cases would be thrown onto the next
term.
Mr.. Whittemore said it was true he
would like to have these cases tried be-
fore another set of jurors. Most of the
present panel had already sat in one
Or more of this class of cases and ac-
cording to his view were more or less
Mr. Murphy said that the county at
torney had openly stated that he would
not try any more of these cases until
after Hayken was tried, and it an
peared as if his motion was for no
other purpose than to gain time. and it
that no effort whatever had
been made TO get the absent witnesses
here.
ADMITTED EVERYTHING.
Mr.. Dickson-We object to any fur
hen continuance in these cases and
order to remove every excuse from
he county attorney for not trying
hat the absent witnesses would. if
lere, testify to everything the county
attorney states in his affidavit that he
expects to prove by them.
sui this did not satisfy Mr. Whit |
emore, and he insisted that if the de-
ense admitted the testimony of his
witnesses they would have to admit |
he truth of the testimony. which |
you'd be tantamount to pleading gull
Mr.. Dickson said he was pre-
lesses would testify as stated |
n the affidavit. but the defense !
doing SO was not bound to admit the
ruin OF the testimony, but had a right
o rebut it if they could.
Judge Hiles said Mr. Dickson's posi- |
ION was the correct one, and asked Mr. !
Fhittemore if he had any authorities /
cite in support of his position.
Mr.. Whittemore had none, but asked
or a continuance to give him time to |
onsult with his associate, Mr.. Varian
ne court allowed him an hour to do so.
WON'T PROCEED
At the expiration of the recess, Mr..
Vhttemore again took the floor and
rgued that the defendant could not
ave his constitutional right to be con-
ronted by his accusers, and therefore.
Though the defense made the admis,
ions. the prosecution could not accent
hem, as IL they did so. in case of con-
lotion the defendants might have
rounds for new trial Counsel said
e mad been unable to find any author
les directly bearing on the point, but
uoted others to show that the govern
lent. when prosecuting, in making ad-
lissions were obliged to admit their
nth as we'll as that the witness would
} testify This was admitted by all
arties, but counsel and the judge held
nat it did not apply to the defense in
ny case.
Mr. Varian made a few remarks in
lpport of the motion for continuance
Le thought there was no particular rea-
IN why the cases should be hurried to
'ial The matter, however, was within
lie discretion of the court
Mr.. Dickson-Do you hold that it is
constitutional privilege which the de-
,ndant cannot waive.
Mr.. Varian with a smile)-I have not
'oked into that point.
Mr.. Dickson argued that the affidavit
1owed that no effort to get ready for
ial had been made by the prosecution
simply showed a lack of diligence on
lie part of the government The trial
as set on the application of the county
-torney for March g. He forced a con-
nuance then till March "a, by leaving
lie territory and going to Chicago He
mt force these continuances con-
antly and If we admit. as we have
greed to do, that his witnesses will
stify to exactly what he says they
i'll, what more can he want? In the