Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1898-09-29
oIark case.

ueWalJ boy, clyde lie told q story
to tally with that of his mother and
brother and Jack BurrIll. Mrs, Postel
wait was asked a number of questions
on cross examination which she re-
fused TO answer. She was asked II
she had not stayed with BurrIll rs
man and wife at Coldwater In a hotel,
also II she had not two deep scare or
dents on each hip. or these Ques--
tlOns, the former WAS urged as show
ing her character, for the purpose of
dlsproving her veracity, the latter was
claimed rs material in that II would
bring ont important testimony. II
was not however allowed. The other
question was permitted to be asked
but 1t was not required Of her to an
swer and she did not. She claimed
she did not know about the murder till
next morning, and Clyde also claimed
he went to bed and slept TIL morning.
or the witnesses above mentioned,
they all contradicted all they had said
at the coroner's inquest unless 1t was
Burrill, who said but little there.
Clark told the same story he did at
the inquest, with some more added.
Claimed he went up ID Mrs. Postle-
waits room about ten O'Clock when
she sent for him to tell her what to do
abont pain In her side. That he
knew nothing about the murder Til In
the morning, Admitted having coun-
seled with them concerning certain
things, but advised Harry, also his
mother, to confess the whole truth,
Said he first got acquainted with Mrs
PosIlethwait as her attorney. Coun-
seled with them about the murder
next morning. Admitted to having
carried at times when he hal money, a
piece Of gaspipe with bolt driven in
end, such as described by Postle-
waits. That one time when there to
eat, had It up his sleeve, and 1t both
cred him, Took II out and forgot It,.
Also admitted having carried home q
bundle from the Postlethwait resUau-
rant, the morning after the murder.
Said it was his own pants he had left
there a few days before. Said be took
them home and hung them In the s.a-
BILE, Said there was no blood on them.
Prosecution questioned him about
former clients it was Claimed he had
swlndled, also, about an order for his
dlsbarment. He explained about it
and that 1t had been dropped.
Drs, Colladay and Sldlinger were
put on the stand TO testify regarding
the nature Of Boyd's wounds. Admit.
ted some Of them might have been
made with such weapon as Postle-
thwaits described, but that it was i'm
possible that all of them could.
Mrs. Smith who lived up the same
stairway with Mrs, Postlethwait, said
q man she thought was Clark came to
Mrs. Postlethwait's room about 1900
O'Clock or between that and 1900.
About 100 O'Clock she heard men
talking in loud voices in the rear of
the restaurant.
Several witnesses were introduced
to show that beer was sold at the res
taurant.'
James Huffman testified that Clyde
had told him before the murder that
Boyd had had trouble with Harry and
II he didn't look out Harry would do
him up. or some such Language.
Several attorneys and business men
were introduced to show that Clark
was u peaceful citizen.
w. B. Church testified that the
night of Boyd's murder he had heard
one man say to another In the rear Of
the Eagle grocery, three or four doors
north of the Postlethwait restaurant,
"the s--of b. Lets do him now.''
Didn't know who they were.
Mrs. Clark, wife Of the defendant,
corroborated his evidence, as far as
her knowledge went. Admitted hav
ing a small bond fire in from of biz
house, but said no clothing was burned
Clark said he had not, to the best Of
his recollection, worn a suit used IL
painting next day. Commiss
Toner Miskimen, VIM. Paris ant
others, were introduced to prove he
had,
We have given the important facts
brought out in the testimony. There
IS very little on which to convict Clark
except in the testimony of Burrell ant
the Postlethwaits, all of whom except
Burrell, are confessed perjurers, and
he is an ex-convict wltha bad RECORD
since. However 1t Is evident Clarl
has had too much to do with the Pos
tlethwaits and tie case. The charge
| was for being accessory before the
fact of murder In the first degree. II
seems to us there is very little to prove
this charge, circumstantial or other