The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-23

Morris never called for and never got,
counsel said that just about that time
the smoke of the investigation began
to make itself seen and that was why
the defendant didn't call for the pack
age. The various payments by Hay
ken to Morris were referred to seriatim.
THE !. K. PORCH INCIDENT.
Then the incident of Morris regis
tering at the Wellington hotel in Chi
cago as ]. K. Porch, of Rock Island,
his, was touched on. Counsel thought
il was strange that the defendant
should sink his name, lose his identity
and ]. *. Porch, of Rock Island, Ill,
should come to the front. Mr.. Morris
explained this on the theory that he
wanted to avoid L. c. Davis, who had
been a witness in some of these cases.
Counsel thought if Morris was sur
rounded by the consciousness of his
own integrity and convinced of the
legitimacy of his business he would
have gone ahead under his own name
without caring anything about l.. c..
| Davis or anyone else. Mr.. Varian then
went on to argue that it was on that
| occasion, in January, 1896, at the Wei
lington hotel, Chicago, that the contract
for the sale of the mine was signed
and that contract was dated nearly
| two years back for the purpose of COW
bAS~AAOe~S~AO~N~'
HAYKEN NOT A PERJURER.
Counsel argued that however wrong
Hayken had gone he had not reached
the stage where he would go on the
stand and Derjure himself even to
/ save himself, because his chance, his
opportunity to clear himself and effec-
tually stop this and the other kindred
! prosecutions was at his own trial. If
! he had then gone on the stand and tes-
titled as Morris did about the mining
| deal, it, with Morris testimony, would
! have cleared both of them.
! Counsel then dwelt at length on the
I improbability of Hayken buying a mine
he knew nothing about had never seen
/ and which was comparatively worth
j less for $4,000 He was not a mining
man, knew nothing about mines, YET
/ Morris says he bought this mine for
$4,000 and actually paid $500 on &C
count of it, yet never got any title
deeds, nothing to show he had any in
/ tereSt in it. What a simple minded
fool Hayken must have been; a sucker
L suppose they would call him in Dug
way, but that is not the most extraor-
binary part of it, for Hayken, after
paying his $500, absolutely denies that
he has any interest in the mine, denies
that he ever bought it. If Morris story
is true what a consummate fool Hay
ken must have been. Counsel then
reverted to the different payments
which went to make up the $500 and
pointed out that the dates as given by
Morris and Hayken when such pay
ments were made corresoonded.
MORRIS ADMISSIONS.
The defendants admission to having
received this money was equal to
plea of guilty. The scheme was like
glass, SO transparent that the sun
shines through it,
Counsel argued that when the Hay
ken letters were published Morris and
Hayken, if this mining deal was genu-
inc, could have explained the imputa-
tions contained in them, but instead of
doing that, which would have been so
easy for both, they go ahead and build
up q defense laboriously and tediously.
All their efforts are put forward to
beat back testimony to keep witnesses
away; Morris writes Keep Stratton
and the boy away at all hazards" This
does not look like innocence.
Counsel in conclusion called on the
jurors to do their duty as representa-
tive men between the people of the
state of Utah and the defendant
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
Judge Rolapp delivered his charge to
the jury as follows:
The defendant Joseph r. Morris, is
accused by the indictment Of the Of
tense of giving a bride The indictment
alleges in substance. that on the first
day Of February, 1894, the defendant
was a duly elEted, qualified and act
ing selectman of the county of Salt
Lake and as such was a, member of the
county court aforesaid of said county,
and an executive officer of the territory
of Utah. That it then and there was the
duty of the selectmen OF said county
court to provide furniture and fittings
for public building then and there
erected in said county of Salt Lake,
known as the joint city and county
building. And to that end to receive
and act upon the proposals and bids
and make appropriations for the pay
ment CT the same. That at the time and
place aforesaid, one Martin Hayken as
the agent for A. H. Andrews & Co.,
who proposed to furnish the said
county of Salt Lake, through its county
court, large quantity of furniture and
fittings necessarily required for the
use of the county in the building afore-
said, and that bids and proposals there
for. from and by said Martin Hayken,
for said A. H. Andrews & Co., We're
then and there presented to and pend
ing before the county court of said
county, and the selectmen thereof and
thereafter on said date, said proposals
and bids by the said Martin Hayken
We're accepted by the said selectmen
and the county court and in pursuance
thereof and thereafter, were offered for
acceptance by the said Martin Hayken
for said A. H Andrews & Co. to the
said selectmen and county court, and
acceptance of the same and appropria-
tons for the payment thereof was re-
uueSted and demanded by the said
Martin Hayken for A. H. Andrews &
Co. That thereafter, and on the first day
of August, 1894, and while the question
of the acceptance of said furniture and
fittings, and the appropriation by the
said selectmen and the county court
for the payment of the same, was
pending and undetermined, the said
Joseph r. Morris in the county and
territory aforesaid, did feloniously and
eorruptly receive from the said Martin
Hayken. while he, the said Joseph r.
Morris, was then and there selectman
and executive officer aforesaid a bride
to-wit: The sum of $4,000 lawful money
of the United States. upon the felon-
ious and corrupt agreement then and
there formed and had between the said
parties, that the vote and action of the
said Joseph R. Morris, as such select
man and executive officer aforesaid,
and as a memmebr Of the county court,
upon the acceptance of the furniture
and fittings aforesaid, and upon the
appropriations for the payment there
for. should be influenced by said bride
and favorably to the said Martin Hay
ken and the interests represented by
him as aforesaid.
BRIBERY DEFINED.
The crime as charged in this indict-
ment is defined by section 1896 of the
complied laws of Utah as follows: