The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-02

| the furniture.
Third-An appropriation of $15, 0OC
was made by the county court, OF
which Morris was a member, in June,
1894, before any furniture had been
delivered and in direct opposition to
the contract
Fourth-Defendant's statement and
letters of themselves are sufficient to
establish the corpus deficit, the main
offense.
Judge Hiles Gnterrupting COUNSEL
These are circumstances; now tell me
to what specific act the admissions and
letters relate. When, where, on what
occasion do they show that Hayken
gave bride to Morris, and what spe-
cific thing OF value do they show was
given?
Mr. Nye-I wish l could tell, your
honor. l would go on the stand. In a
case of this kind there can be no direct
evidence of the bribe being given. a
bribery case must rest mainly on cir
cumstantial evidence. The time, place
and amount of the bride is only known
to Hayken and Morris.
Judge Hiles-You must then make
the jury know what Hayken and Nor
ris know before the corpus deficit is
established.
Counsel went on to cite cases in sup
port of his position, but his honor held
that the cases SO cited proved the re-
verse of what counsel intended them to
do. Mr.. Nye realized the position he
occupied and cut his talk very short.
Mr.. Whittemore closed the argu-
ments for the prosecution on the point.
He thought it was very unreasonable
Of the court TO require the prosecution
to cite specific case where Hayken
had given Morris bride. The admis-
sions of Hayken, he thought, were
sufficient to convict him. The prose-
cution had worked hard on the case
and presented the best evidence they
could. They had shown, counsel
thought. sufficiently that bride had
been given. He reviewed the letters
and the statements contained therein,
holding that they were sufficient to
prove that Morris had sold himself and
Salt Lake county to Hayken. Counsel
went on with long speech irrelevant
to the point under consideration until
Judge Hiles got weary and desired
him several times to confine his re-
marks to something revelant to the
point Mr.. Whittemore concluded by
asking his honor to examine some au-
thorities cited, but his honor replied
that he was already thoroughly ia
miliar with them.
Judge Henderson, in closing for the
defense, said it was as necessary for
the prosecution TO identify a particular
transaction when the bride was given
as it was for them to allege it in the
Indictment They had failed to do so
and all the irrelevant talk of counsel
might confuse jury unskilled in law,
but the court knew better The testi-
mony, the letters, were admitted for
the purpose Of showing the motive for
the crime, when the prosecution shall
have shown that the crime was COM
mitted.
MOTION OVERRULED.
The court then said: while 1 can
not at this time take any further time
to consider the matter, l have consid-
cred it in advance of the argument of
counsel and 1 must say that L entertain
very serious doubt upon the question
and it may be that l ought to grant
the motion. But not having time now
to go over all the evidence in the case
and determine the relations and de-
Tendencies of the various parts of the
testimony l cannot say that 1 am so
clear that the motion ought to be
granted and l will therefore overrule
it. 1 will reserve the ruling however,
upon the question Of peremptory in
structions to the jury at the end of the
case"
DEFENSE OPENS.
The defense then opened by placing
S. B. Westerfie.1 on the stand who,
examined by Judge Dey. said he was
member of the BOARD of education when
the contract for school furniture was
let to Andrews & Co. He identified the
contract which was placed in evidence.
The board of education paid the prices
as mentioned in the contract.
Judge Dey then offered in evidence
the contract with the city for furniture
supplied by Andrews & Co. to the city
for the city's portion of the city and
county building.
The object of these documents was to
show that the city and the board of
education had paid as high price for
their furniture as the county.
DISPOSITIONS READ.
Dispositions of L. NJ Crosby, F. o.
Bauman, H Drew and Charles Schwei-
ger were put in evidence to prove that
the furniture supplied was reasonably
worth the price paid for it. Some Of
the figures were considered high and
others low, but as a whole Mr.. Bau-
man, who is manager of a furniture
house in New York, considered them
fair and reasonable. The statements
of the other Opponents, who are all
prominent in. the furniture business.
corresponded substantially with those
of Mr.. Bauman.
The defense called for the bond given
by Andrews & Co. TO Salt Lake county
for the faithful performance of the
contract. The original bond could not
be found at the moment and evidence
of its contents was put in instead.
DEFENSE RESTS.
Judge Dey then announced that the
defense rested and the prosecution
called E. E. Swiney in rebuttaL Wit
ness said in July or August, 1895, he
bought from Andrews & Co. No. A
curtain desk similar to the one the
county paid $112.5O.
How much did you pay for it?"
asked counsel.
Objected to as not rebuttal and OBJ
lection sustained The witness was
then excused and the evidence closed.
ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY.
Judge Hiles, after consultation with
counsel. limited the time for the argu-
ments to two hours a side and said he
would expect counsel for the prosecu-
ton in their opening to fix the time
and occasion on which the alleged
bribe was given clearly.
Attorney George Nye opened Tor the
prosecution at 1925 o'clock. He, to set
out with, stated that the date on which
the alleged bride was given was May
7. 1894 the date on which the contract
was signed. This he based on the fact
that Hayken on April 81 had written his
firm that the parties were clamoring
for s.. 500 down and without doubt the
money was paid when the contract was
signed.
Counsel then proceeded with his ar
p-,5naent reviewing and commenting on
fbe letters of Hayken and the evidence
generally. applying it to the case in