The herald., 1897-09-26
editor, Mr.. Allen Kelly, and did you then
deny that you had prepared this pro-

ceny tnat you nao prepared TINS pro-
gram?"
mo. I neither denied 1t nor anlrmed
It," De Groot replied.
you neither denied It nor affirmed
1t? Then why did you not deny it at
that time," persisted Mr.. Appel.
That's my business" snapped De
Groot, but the answer was stricken out
on objections from his attorneys.
Not only did De Groot repudiate his
interview regarding the program which
Mr.. Haag had related, but he denied the
testimony Of the previous witness. In
fact, everybody on the opposite side
seemed to look alike to him and whether
it was denying his own statements or
denying the statements Of other wit
nesses, De Groot was perfectly at home.
A. c. Knights testimony came in for its
share Of denial and according to the
answers of the defendant, it seemed as
if De Groot was as innocent in the use
Of swearing and insulting language as
babe in swaddling bands, instead Of
having attained the thirty-third degree
in Billingsgate. De Groot said he had
not cursed the complaining witness nor
had he said anything about wanting him
to come back to the store in order that
he could have the satisfaction Of throw
ing him out. He did think though, that
he had said something about having
ordered him to leave the store and stay
away. Kidd's testimony also proved an
inspiration OF denial for De Groot. The
defendant stated that when he saw
Kidd, the latter was standing on the
sidewalk north Of the store entrance
- Ie>o a a
signs in the window could not have been
able to see what transpired inside the
store before knight was put out. De
Groot also denied having stepped down
onto the sidewalk and assaulted knight
a second time. The defendant said that
after Knight had been put out Of the
store he had started toward the store
again, whereupon the defendant had
told him to keep out and never to come
into the store. De Groot then turned
and went inside. He denied having used
any more force than had been necessary
to put Knight out and claimed that the
young man had resisted. De Groot had
not finished his testimony when the noon
recess was taken. At the afternoon
session his cross-examination was fin
ished and then his clerks were allowed
to help their employer from his diff
Guilty.
J. H. Steum. who is employed in the
drug store, was called by the defense.
He testified to the main facts as nearly
as possible, like his employer, but his
sad lack of memory and his habit of
getting positions, people and dates
mixed made him pitiably poor witness
On cross-examination he admitted hav-
ing heard De Groot say something about
the program he had mapped out for the
Herald reporter If he should CALL in this
exposing the unreliability Of his en-
ployer's statement that he had had no
program and never told any one that he
had. Steum was badly ratified under
the fire of cross ss-examin alton and heaved
a sigh Of relief when told to step down
and out. He had by his testimony COR
roborated the witnesses for the prose-
cution in regard to all essential partic-
ulars, although the information was
dragged out piecemeal.
Two other Of De Groot's clerks, W. L.
Sanborn and DR.. F. J. Kepfer, testified
as to the occurrence Of the trouble, the
burden Of their evidence being to the
effect that but little force had been used
in the ejectment. This concluded the
evidence and by stipulation Of the attor-
neys on both sides the case was submit
ted without argument Justice Owens
took the case under advisement.