The times., 1897-06-18
MuLLAN DEFENSE OPENED
Additional Testimony Tends to
Show a Combination.
SOBRIETY OF THE ACCUSED
The Credihility of Engineer AIMS
worth Attacked by the Prosecu-
tion-Bias Suggested Witnesses
Declare They Had seen Accused
When lie Had Been Drinking.


at the navy yard at 10 O'Clock yesterday
morning
Paymaster General Stewart was called
as a witness by the prosecution. He
testified that he visited the Pensacola
Navy Yard in December, 1896, and met
Commander Mullan, then commandment of
the yard, at the house of the latter Urder
direct examination Paymaster General
Stewart testified that the manner of the
accused was courteous and his speech
coherent. The judge advocate objected
20 the answer of the witness on the ground
bnat 1t was not a direct answer. At
torncys McCammon and Hayden, counsel
for the defense, protested against the
sactics OF the Judge advocate and main
saineti that the answer of the witness
was a direct one.
After a legal tangle, witness was told
by the court to answer directly TO the
question OF the prosecutor as to whether
the accused wasintexicatedo or sober The
witness then said that the impression which
he 3t the time received was that the ac-
cused had been drinking, though he could
not state that he was intoxicated
The testimony given before the court of
inquiry at Pensacola by A r. Chaffin,
James A Mcdonald, and w. e. Ghiplay
was read Th,. first named witness testi
fled that the accused had been drinking,
but was net drunk; the second namaG wit
ness thought that on one occasion the ;ic-
cuSed had been drinking because he talked
more than usual. and the last witness for
the prosecution testified that he had seen
the accused drunk.
The prosecution closed at IL O'Clock anil
recess was taken. The defense opened
after the noon recess Attorney Hayden
proceeded to read the testimony given be-
fore the court OF inquiry by the witnesses
for the defenss. The first testimony sub
uittcd was that of John Morrill, ship
wright at the Pensacola navy yard. The
Trst question was, What was the condi-
tioa Of Commander Mullan at the times yoa
cav hin?''
The defense sought TO introduce this
evidence as direct evidence in rebuttal
of the specific charge OF intoxication on
duty, made against the accused. The
prosecution objected, but would be willing
to have this evidence admitted as tend
ing to establish the good character of
ulittsd on this ground Morrin testified
tEat he had seen the accused several times
each day during the period in which the
cases of iHtGxication are charged to have
occurred. Commander Muuan was sober
each time morrill, testified that he had
never seen anything TO indicate that
Commander Nullan was a drinking man.
lie was always polite and courteous.
Attorney Hayden thenread the testimony
of Thomas Curran, who said that he saw
Commander Mullan On an average of four
times day, but never saw him under the
influence of liquor. He usually knew when
a man was drunk by seeing him drink and
by noticing a changein his gait and manner.
John j. keefe, a laEoIer in the Pensa-
cola yard, testified that he saw the COM
nander daily six or eight times during
the period when the offenses aIe alleged
to have occurred.
lie saw the commander at his quarters
at the yard He never saw the accused
under the influence Of liquor HIS man
Rer was normal He had never snieIled
liquor on the breath of the accused
The testimony of Mrs. RhOda Arm
strong, OF Fort Earanacas, Fla, was then
read. she, with a fl end, lad called upon
the commander several times fer the puT-
pose OF securing the Use OF a Government
building for the use of charity. The COM
mander was sober and courteous.
The next testimony introduced was that
OF Miss Winfred Simpson. She had met
the commaBdant at his quarters She
had never called with Mrs Armstrong
upon the same business. The accused
WAS always sober. She had been close
enough to the commander to smell his
breath, but she had never smelled liquor
on it.
The testimony of Horace Greece was
introduced TO support the testimony Of
Mrs. Armstrong and Miss Simpson He
remembered that they had called to see
the eommandant. The testimony of both
Mrs Armstrong and Miss Simpson had
been that caller whom they lid not
know had called upon Commander AfuIlan.
4 ke ladies and the cook testified that
Commander Mullan was Sober This testi-
moay eontrafiicsed that given by KessIer,
who was witness for the prosecutions
and who testified that, when he called
upon Commander Alullan, that officer was
int0XiFated.
The testimony OF Charles 7. Afnsworth,
engineer OF the steam launch upon which
Commander Mallan was said to have been
seen drunk by the government witness.
Chipiey. was that he had never seen the
commander drunk.
The defense presented this as direct evi-
denoe to reOut the testimony of Cllpl.y.
10 this the prosecution objected and the
objection was sustained Ainsworth's
testimony was strong evidence in Behalf
Of the accused, and much of it was di.
reotly IL opposition 10 some OF the snee sfic
allegations of the prosecution.
Under eFoSs-eSaminatian Aingwortb vvas
asked this question:
Were <ou drunk on a certain night and
were you reported by Paymaster Ieyvett7,,
The defense objected that this was a
question not pertinent to the case. The
prosecution wanted the question admitted
In ORDER 10 attack the credibility of the
witness Attorney Hayden stated that
testniony going to show that a man had
been Intoxicated did not affect his creai.
onisy. Ihe judge advocate agreed with
MI hayuenln this, making the observation
Ine best OF us are liable to do this,
but the prosecution desired the Guestion
admitted that it might show bias ON the
part OF the witness in favor of the accused.
The prosecution wanted to show that AIMS
worth had been reported to Commander
Aiulian fer intoxication and that the Of
Tense Lad been condoned by Commander
MuIlan.
The testimony of T. NJ skarret. a wit
ness for the defense, was then read. He
was a writer" at the navy yard atPensa-