The evening times., 1897-06-17

GfueT ~ tue navy gdih de ~ y StOOh N''''
morning by Commodore Norton, command
ant of the navy yard and president OF
the court
. Commander MulIan, the accused, ar
rived early ana took his seat in one cor
ner Of the courtroom and by the side If
his counsel He busted himself largely with
the reading of tie Papers in the case.
Paymas.er General stewart, chef Of the
Bureau OF supplies, Navy Department, was
the first witness, and testified that he Wis
itel THE P.Tisacpil, yard iH the discharge oI
his duties IN December, 1896. He net
Commander Mullan AT his house at the
yard. lie spent about five minutes there.
He called TO say goud-by. The manner OF
Commander Mullan was respectful and
dignifled aud his speech was coherent.
The Judge advocate had asked the wit
;tcSS as to the condition OF Commander Mu.-
Ian. and did not consider the answer Of
the witness j direct one. He pUt the
question again, and counsel for the &c
cused objected. A direct answer Was cum
ms,tdeI by the court, and the witness then
SAID that the impression made upon hin.
at the time was that Commander MGllan
had been drinking.
Under rcfuss-eXausination Paymasfer Gen
cral stewart said that he was reluctant To
STATE that Commander Mullln was intoxr
Gated. he had never seen the commander
take a drink. and his speech was coherent
and his manner courteous. lie would only
give il AS his opinion that Comma ncer
Mullan had been drinking. lie thought
that there was some slight thickness OF
articulation iu his speech.
! Is,-ic a!tergariuu cnsaed here between
TIE prosecution and defense, because the
latter charged the former with having
asked q leading question OF the witness
AsPavntaSt-r General stewart was about
Go leave TIE CITY his testimony wa, readto
ii,u. and ne approved the record as cor
rect.
The iud.e advocatc tleu proceeded with
the recording Of The testimony isken iy
the court az inquiry, held az Per Sl,pia
i 'e ilT~t testimony read was that 81
Chaffin. Cou.u8auuanL's clerk a. ,'vusa-
cola witness did Uo, think accused was
drunk. but houEht that h. had hccn drink
ing lie ssculadon one OC, aston 10 i'e very
angry The witRrs thought then that
Commander MuIlan hal hecn dnnging.
The testimony of JuHvs A MCIcnald, a
ship,vrfgr,. at tie Pensacola navy yard,
was 10 the effect that he visited the pay
masters ofuce and there net Commander
NulIan. Witness thought that the off Csr
mad been blinking leg"use be talked more
than usual
The testimony of W. q. Chipley, Of
Pensacola. was read. and n was that the
witness had seen the commander drunk.
II was the o,Carion when tie COMMANDER
was entering the steam launch at ire
navy ward at PensaCola.
Commander MuIlan's breath was scent
ed with liuuor and he had difficulty in
walking one Of the crew assisted the
commander 70 enter the launch. Ia enter
ing the cabin be had some difficulty. The
launch was Still mnored In slip and the
,ystp~ vas calm The witness bad seen
the accused al other times when witness
thought hc was under the influence CI
liquor. hut during theinCideut CT the launch
witness was positive that the accused
was drunk
Attorney Hayden announced that wit
nc>s Cnipley lad not been submitted 70
adequate CruSs-eNaminatIon.
Judge Advocate Laucheimer argued that
ttis statement WAS improper, and recited
refused to answer.
Attorney Hayden proceeded to attack
the srcdfhility Of witness Chipley. The
refusal OF the witness to answer the
quest ION which did not inCrimnate him
self. abridged the right OF crUss-exarui-
nation. took from the defense Tire POWER
TO ifupcach the testimony Of the witness
The Judge advocate and Attorney HAYDEN
continued TO argue the question OF the
crcdihility Of Witness Chipley, and counsel
for the defense moved that the entire
testimony Of Chipley should be stricken
from the record Chipley was a civilian
witness bef ore the court OF inquiry.
That court lad no power TO compel that
witness TO answer a question and nO
power TO punish him for contempt
The contention OF the defense was that
Chiplry might have taken advantage ofthe
license The defense maintained that
when Chiplev refused to give the names OF
people who had informed him of certain
acts done by Commander Mullan, the wit
ness thereby prevented the defense fIom
disproyiur his testimony. This took away
and that on this ground the testimony
81 Such a witness should be expunged from
the record.
Attorney Hayden stated that when Chip
lev refused to give the names of his n
formants, he made it impossible for the
defense to call these men as witnesses in
After taking the matter under advise
ment, the motion OF counsel for defense
was denied, and the testimony OF Chip
ley admitted.
Judge Advocate Laucheimer announced
that the prosecution rested its case, and a
recess was taken TIL O'Clock.
wien the court Teconvened Attorney
Ha yden, for the defense, proceeded to read
the testimony given by witnesses for the
defense before the Pensacola court OF in
quiry.
The first witness was John Morrill,,
watchman at the Pensacola navy yard
Witness had seen the accused two
or three times q day for q year.
The introduction OF the question: What
were the habits OF Commander Mullan?'
and the answers TO this question were OBJ
Iected TO by the prosecution on the ground
IF irrelevancy. Attorneys for the defense
argued the pertinenoe and materIality of
he question on the ground that 1t bore
directly upon the second charge, which is
hat Commander Mullan was drunk on duty.
The judge advocate maintained that
this evidence did not tend to disprove a
specification, and that Morrill, may have
seen the accused hundred times, yet at
s@~@&@@4@&@~Se% %~%~~A Se%s@e