Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-05-07

Of the Joint building comm ittee flr
four years, from 1891 10 1894 Inclusive,
also ideuti1ed the records, especial at.
tention being directed 10 the proceed.
ings OF the meeting leading up TO the
awarding OF the contract.
4 CLOUDY WITNESS.
A breeze which parlook somewhat OF
the form oi a sensation, waited through
the courtroom when County Attorney
Whiitemofe called Barker TO the wit.
nsts stand, pulled n care lly folded
paper from bis pocket, stepped forward
and said, "Boiore We proceed any fur.
Their your honor, / want TO state that
hold ia nv hsnd Information against
the w'tneSs Barker for Offering a bfibe,
and I move that before he n required
TO testify that the Information be dis.
mitacd."
- SELF CoNFEssED CRIMINAL"
Attorney Rawllns entered vigorous
objection 10 the dismissal Of the IN
formation, saying that the man was n
tolf.ooniosied criminal, who ought not
~ this junciute at least be permitted
To receive immunity from punishment
or other reward as payment for what
ho nights Ay.
Attorney Whiitomote said 10 was
not the business Of tho attorneys fof
the defense to make such ELECTIONS.
II was u we'll settled principle Of law
that II was entirely In tue Secretion VI
the Stale a. 10 WHISTLER or not one per.
s0n could not be granted immunity
In order 10 fasten tho wrong upon
anothet-that tho interests OF justice |
might be subsetvei,
Attorney Critchlow contended that |
70 was most en- rhAtioally the business !
81 tbs defense 10 object % the turning |
loose upon the community = criminal, |
10 20 uDwhlppod Of justice. IL was
not the proper thing 10 make au agree.
meut such ~ apparently had been
made by the county attorney with the
witntss-an agreement which evident.
" had a string to 10 which could be-
pulled At Mr.. Whittemofo's pleasure.
Witness ought 10 know that the dis.
misssl az PROPOSED was not bar Tor
the Ming Of aiuture information " IN.
dlctmsnt. Tho chances were that he
would hear Of II again and I'm n man.
ner not pleasant to contemplate. The
county attorneys action was simply a
dramatic play.
THE iNFORMATiON DISMISSED.
JuIge Rolnpp, commenting on the
m stion,aaid that II was not uncOmm IA
for lilo state 10 dismlaa Charge against
one or more pAftiea In order 10 elicit
Information In important oases. Ia
this Instance, aa had been observed BY
counsel, the dismissal would not pre-.
vent should the evidence Justify, the
Ming OF any other information agsintt
the witness. Therefore In actually
hss aHNN g. /
ward or expect TO evAde punishment.
The Information would therefore DO
dismissed.
BANKER AHE ms BRIDE.
The examination OF Barker by the
prosecution was then Proceeded With,
frequent objections being made by the
defense and generally ovsrTuled bi
tho court. Witness stated that Chi.
oago had been his home since 1857,
that he came here In November,
1888; that Immediately On his ~.
fiVai, oTi tweuty-four hours thereafter
he "stAftsd ont" TO get acquainted
with the members OF tn, Joint commit.
tee; Bamberser told him ho would
have " spend mOney-moTe than HE
salary. Witness wanted 10 know how
much, but BamboTger did not reply.
I
MT. BE- Office and called the latter to n
and wToIo "s5OO" on clip OF paper.
The ex.selectmAn, he then alleged,
nodded his head, -aidi"All right" and
walked away. BambofgeT likewise
told him that Couucilman Mainland,
n member OF the committee, also
wanted TO "get In on tho deal" but
witness refused on account OF Want
land "going out VI oiiios on the frst Of
the following January" the intlma.
ton belng That ho could be OF no use
after that time ON account OF being re-
legated 10 private life.
Witness was then asked by MI
Whittemoro what stepa he took sub.
sGquent 10 the offering Of the bride
towards carrying his agreement into
effect.
Mr. RaWlins objected to the witness
answering the question and quoted
numerous authorities and made
lengthy argument In favor OF his posi-.
ton.
JURY EXCUSED UNTIL p. 81.
Whom Mr.. Rawllns finished tpeAk.
ing, which was at 1890, Judge Rolspp
excused the Jury until p. M. admnn.
ishing the mem bera 10 be- very careful
not TO form orexpress an opinion on tho
case either 10 zach or other persons
until the whole cause should be-
summed up at the end OF the trial.
Mr.. Whittsmore then proceeded to
reply TO Mr.. Rawlins.
ThiH Afternoons ProesedIags.
On Teassembllng at 2 y. m. the wit.
ness WAS requested to answer the
question, Judge R5lapp having over
ruled Mr.. RAwlins's objection.
The question was "Whal did you do
towards carrying out your agreement
10 pay MIR. BAmbeTger S5OO7"
Tho answer vast "On my arrival at
Chicago l requested MT. johnson ~
send hr. Bambergsr the money
$500
Mr.. Rawllns objected to the question
and was tubIHi ed.
Then Mr.. WhittemOTe repeatod the
substance Of tho question In variuus
forms In order that II might be Pre-.
leutod In an uno1Jeotlonable shapr.
This was long and tangled pTocael.
Ing which resulted simply In The wilt
ness reiIerating his former answers on
Tho same point.
CtosH-eKamintd 49, Witness bsid hIs
Expenses we're now being paid by Mr.