Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-11-28
NORRIS TRIAL


A question Brings In Long Argn-
inent on Points of Law.
Mt. Hayken was recalled this morn
ing In the Morris bribery tris! in the
criminal court for the purpose OF prov
lug that the firm OF A. Ii. Andrews
d Go. was a. the time or the alleged
bribery corporation, but when Mr..
Whittemore put the question Judge
Powers objected To 1t Tor the reason
that II tue witness were allowed to
answer he wouli merely give his own
conclusion and therefore 1t would not
he the best evidence. The Indictment
found against the defendant alleged
TINT A. ii. Andrews q Go. wss o cor
pnrniion ana 1t was therefore neces-
sary Tor the prosecution to prove the
allegation by competent testimony ana
the witness's own conclusion would
not be tue best testimony, which the
law demands must be produced In
these .cases. Ii was possible for the
prosecution to produce the certificate OF
Incorporation from the secretary OF
etate Of Iilipois-ihis woull be the best
evidence. When the defendant On.
tered his plea OF not guilty TO the
Indictment he denied every material
allegation contained in that paper, anu
1t 10 therefore necessary tor the prose-
cution to prove everything denied. In
order for A. IL. Andrews * Co. to
properly do business IN this s,ate the
firm should have incorporated with the
secretary OF State here.
Judge Rhodes, Tor the S ate, quoted
authorities to chow that It was only
necessary in such cases rs this to prove
the corporation by general reputation
and such testimony would be COM
peteni. "This ie the first time In my
life l have hesrd 1t urged" said JugRe
Rhodes, "Ibat 1t was necessary for
concern TO file Its certificate of incor-
poration with the secretary OF state in
order to steal few thousand doIlars.o
The objection was sustained by
Judge Rolapp only on account OF the
wsy the question was framed.
Mr. WnittemoTe then put n series OF
questions III tue answers to which the
fact WAS developed that the firm Of A.
ii. Andrews d Co. was u corporation
and did business as such.
Judge Powers obiscte1 to each ques.
ton sudihis objections were overruled.
Judge Powers asked few questions
relative to the visit OF witness and
Morris to the office OF Attorney
Adams In Chicago, and presented ~
letter written by Hayken to Norris on
March 20, 1896, which the witness
identified.
Ii. ID. Folsom, II. J. Hayward, Elias
Morris aud w. ID. 'Klunersley were
put on the stand as experts and gave
testimony ,ss to the real value OF the
furniture sold and the price obtai ned
for 1t.
The defense objected to the introduc.
ton OF this testim ny as being imma-
t.rial, incompetent and Irrelevant,
but Judge Rolapp oversuled the o0iec-
tons.
Mr.. Hayken was frequently recalled
during the day with reference to the
bills, estimates, ETC., introduced.
Much Of the time was occupied In
arguing fine points OF Jaw and 1t locks
as II the case will run into Monday
afternoon or Tuesday.
THE CHICAGO LAWYER.
]. A, Adams, the Chicago attorney
TO whomHay ken anu MoEris applied for
suvics on the ginning ueab papers,
testified after the NEWS report closed
yesterday evening that he saw Morris
in Chicago in January last. He came
to his tftce In company with Mr..
Hsyken, and Was introduced as "MI.
Witness gave the sdvice
that II the papers presented to him
were capable OF explanation IL would
DO Hayken no harm to sign them.
Upon erOss-sxaminstion he ans
weIed Alr. Powers that he did not
know nc that time the papers were
drawn up for the purpose of covering
up crime. witness wac to receive
$50 per day for his services here and
had been paid $500 before he left
Chicago. The s5UO was sil that would
be paid him 1t he did not remain here
long enough to mote than exhaust that
1T the rate OF $40 per day, exclusive OF