The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-11-28

After several postponements since
the jury was emDaneled for the trial
of ex-County Selectman Joseph R.
Morris on the charge of agreeing to
accept a bride from Martin Hayken,
the agent of Andrews & Co, the TAX
ing of testimony was commenced be-
fore Judge Rolapp yesterday morning.
County Attorney Whittemore, with
whom is associated Judge Rhodes.
made the orening statement for the
prosecution He said he expected to
prove that the defendant had agreed
to accept a bride from Hayken, agent
of the furniture house of Andrews q
Co, in return for which Morris was to
use his influence and give his vote for
awarding the contract for furniture for
the coUnty's half g the city and county
building to Andrews q Co. He would
show that written agreement was en-
tered into to that effect between Hay
ken and Morris. Counsel said Morris
had entered three pleas to the indict-
ment, one of not guilty, another of
previous acquitt5l and third of having
been once in jeopardy. The prosecu-
tion would also show that Morris, after
the trouble began, had gone to Chicago
to fix up a defense with Hayken, AMI
contract
by Which 1t appeared that Hayken had
bought from Morris the Francis mine
in the Deep Greek country for $4,000
and that the receipts (Which would be
produced) for money paid Morris by
Hayken appeared to be for payments
on the nine, While in reality there was
no mining deal at ALL and the money
paid was really a part of the bride
The examining of witnesses then COM
menced, and the ground gone over was
in great part repetition of the testi-
mony given at the previous trial of
Morris in May last. 1t was, however,
gone through very quickly, and there
was an absence OF display and a
marked absence of public interest in
the case, there being very few people
in the court room, which made a strik-
ing contrast with the former trial.
The first witness called was Secre-
tary of State Hammond.
Judge Powers for the defense at once
rose and objected to the introduction
of any testimony in this case for the
reason that his client had previously
been tried on z similar charge and ac-
quilted; that his client had once been /
in jeopardy; that there were
only eight jurors in the box I
while when the offense was alleged to
have been committed, the law required
that all such cases be tried by u
jurors; that his honor had no iuris- |
dictiOn te try the case, and that the !
evidence to be introduced by the state /
on this trial was the same as that in
troduced in the former trial when the /
defendant was acquitted.
Judge RolapD overruled the obiec- !
tons, and at the request of Judge /
Powers ordered that the record show /
that such objection was made and !
overruled uDon the calling of each in !
diViduaI witness.
SECRETARY HAMMOND.
Mr. Hammond then testified that ac-
cording to the records in his possess t
SIGN the defendant duly qualified as a
selectman for Salt Lake county on
November %, 1892, and that his oath
and official bond We're certified to By
the county clerk.
Ex-County Clerk H. V. Meloy said
he was clerk of the county court of
Salt Lake county in the years 1898 and
1894. He identified the contracts en-
tered into between Andrews & Co. and
the county for the furniture for the
county's portion of the joint building
There were two contracts dated March
G, 1894, and May Z. 1894.
The minute books of the county court
showing appropriations to Andrews e
Co. as follows, were init oduced: June
10, 1894. $4,000: July 80, 1894, s., 900; Au-
gust p, 1884, 5000: November 81, 1894,
5000; December %, $2o,973S5; total,
S54,973.S5.
MARTIN RAYKEN
Martin Hayken, who turned states
evidence, was then called and in reply
TO Mr.. Whittemore, said he came to
Salt Lake on December IS 1893, and
remained until May T. 1894
His purpose in coming here was to
endeaVOr 20 secure for the firm of A.
II. Andrews & CO. the contract for the
interior furnishing OF the city and ;
county building. He saw Mr. Morris. ,
the defendant, within two or three
days after his arrival and the select
man asked him TO prepare a schedule {
and specifications.
After / prepared what l thought !
would be necessary, Morris said he
-.oGld present the matter to the meet
ing OF the board, and would see me
later.
When Morris saw me the next time Il
he asked me if I couldn't add per
to the purchase price, and /
told him thatsl per cent could be added !
to the total zmount in consideration | {
of his services in securing the contract ]
for my firm-that is, the firm of =. II. :
& Co.
Morris told me that per cent was 3
not enough and he asked me if I | !
couldn't add 20 per cent. 1 told him {
that was too much, and he said that ) :
per cent WouLtnt do, and that he must !
have 20. l replied that / could not do q
as he requested without first consult q
ing my firm. I did so, and A II. An I
1reWs & Co wrote me that the amount i
asked by Morris was above that us :
1ally given, and was, in fact too much r
for them to agree to; but the firm r
instructed me TO do what | thourht .
was best and secure the contract if 7
possible. l finally made the agreement r
with Morris. on March s, 1894 to add r
70 per cent TO the bill and pay the same +
o him. On April 6, 1884, Morris called q
II ny rooms at the knutsford hotel q
mi said ne wanted some sort of q r
written agreement made cut and d
iigned, guaranteeing the payment Of Y
he money IN consideration OF MS selv- \
ces in helping me to get the furniture 8
contract. ! made out such d paper q
md signed the name of A. II. Andrews Il
( Co.. by NJ. Hayken, thereto; and | q
Sept copy of the paper for myself n
5ut it was later burned by ny wife q
lpon my instructions. Hayken testified $
hat ne paid Morris at various times y
1000 on the rake-off contract, and D
got receipts for the money. r
THE MINING CONTRACT.
When this trouble began the witness :
'aid Morris went to Chicago and got