The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-19

AnC y "a III thN oiF-
barment proceedings against Attorneys
N. l. Wines and e. 8. Booth before
Referee A. J. Campbell was about COM
pleted yesterday. More than hall a
dozen witnesses were examined for the
defense. The evidence, as IL stands,
shows that there was in reality such a
person ~ Ed Laney. whose testimony
was wanted by the defense in the Shat
er case. but that Laney could not be
found. and that j. W. Bacher went to
Seattle and impersonated the missing
witness. and made q deposition for him..
Bacher and his wife. corroborated by
several circumstances. testified that the
two accused attorneys put Bachsr up
to commit the perjury. The two attor-
neys. on the other hand. deny II. and
claim that II Bacher went to Seattle
he did 80 without their knowledge. On
that point their testimony stands alone.
but on every other point in the charges
made against them the testimony II
very much and strongly In their favor.
Mr.. Wines was on the witness stand
again yesterday morning and testified
as to his knowledge Of . man named
Barrett. who was supposed to have
Deer one OF the Wulte WItneB8eB 10 the
Hawkins murder. He said he searched
for the man but could not find him.
TT appears said Mr.. Scallon. that
Mr.. Connolly made an offer In court to
pay h expenses OF bringing Laney
back to Butter"
His offer was simply this: He said
he might want to have that man here,
and I got up and said: You 10 not
want him half as badly - we do and
4 than nHavod IN nou ant ~ INV avn
pocket half the expense of bringing him
back II Mr.. Connolly would see the
commissioners and get permission to
pay the other half. He said he would
see about II. and hat ended the mat
ter"
In regard to Eva Smiths testimony
that she picked up a gun on the saloon
with, Mr.. Wines said he had consider
able doubt about the advisability of
putting Smith on the witness stand,
because. he had a strong suspicion that
she did not tell the truth about using
a gun on Hawkins. but that she used a
razor. The attorneys, however, could
not get hold Of Hawkins coat to verb
fly their suspicious. The coat. Eva
Smith said. had been buried with the
body. 1t turned out, however. hat the
county attorney had the Goa and II
was produced at the trial and showed
plainly that a razor had been used on
it. Mr.. Wines TAI he had no reason to
doubt Smiths story that she picked up
a revolver from the floor, as that
seemed to be corroborated by other
witnesses and accounted for Shafer's
CUR.
On cross-examination by Colonel No
Ian the witness re-told the circum
stances of his efforts to find the mys-
terious witness. Ed Laney, and about
writing to a ace horse man. named
Parker, in Spokane. asking him to look
up the fellow. A reply was received
from Parker and subsequently a letter
was received from Lanet himself. but
ZONE Of them are now in existence. The
letter from Laney was addressed to
wines & Booth" or Booth q Wines"
The witness was asked how he would
account for the fact that the letter
was addressed in that way.
II could accoun for it In several
ways" said Mr.. Wines. First, some
of the race horse men might have said
to him that Booth & Wines wanted to
see him or hear from him about the
Shafer case; or j. M. Bacher may him
self have written the letter and had II
mailed there, where he was well ac-
quainted. having lived there with Joe
Shafer and Ada Bacher. as the police
Of Spokane informed me-"
line IelteT was Opcnco ny DOOtD, anu
the witness afterward saw II and read
it casually, but he did not notice the
date of Il. but IL was signed ED
Laney," and stated that the writer of
it understood that he attorneys want
ed to get his testimony in the Shafer
case. He sal he had given Hawkins
a gun the evening before h murder.
Laney said he was hard up and want
Ell some money. The letter was not
oncuyorad until q IAffav una WriffAN RI
Seattle. sometime later. directing him
to present himself before a notary to
give his deposition. Mr.. Wines said IL
was determined to have the witness In
person or take his deposition. but no
steps were taken to procure his person.
al attendance at the trial. There vas
nothing in his letter that would cast
suspicion on the correctness Of his
statement that he had given Hawkins
a gun. and besides. 1t was corroboratsj
ty other witnesses.
las an attorney. you fully appreci-
ated the Importance Of that testimony
on the trial of the case?"
Yes, SIR"
And that II It received full eredence
at the hands Of the Jury 1t would be .
complete defense?"
mo. sir"
"That with other evidence available
or within your reach?"
II don't know that II you'd W.
then be a complete defense"
You did introduce the evidence to
Justify the act Of Shafer in the killing
Of Hawkins?"
1T was introduced partly with the
idea hat IL IL was evident that both
men had gum IL would not ppe SO
harsh as IL Shafer alone had a gun"
why did you not take steps to have
Laney here personality"
"A lack of funds. i think. was the
principal reason"
Mr.. Wines repeated that he had made
an offer in open court to pay half the
expense of bringing Laney here. He
judged. from the language OF Laney's
letter. that Il would be necessary to
send him back to San Francisco and
this he required some money resides
do you not know a a matter Of
fact that IL you had got him within the
territorial limits Of tais state that the
process of the state cours would have