Evening journal., 1898-12-14

be limited by agreement Of counsel.
Mr. Vandegrift presented his prayers
just before adjournment.
Upon opening OF court this morning
DistriCE Attorney Nandegrift made a
motion tefsre Judge Bradford to re-
open the case in order that he might
introduce evidence for the purpose OF
that the Bay State Gas Com
pany's voucher, executed over Senator
Kenney's own signature. was what he
purported it to be. namely, a retainer
to him as counsel for the Bay State
Gas Company.
Mr. Vlndegrlft stated that at the last
moment the defendant came upon the
stand and refuted this proposition, and
that he had not had an opportunity to
put In evidence to show to the con-
tTary. The district attorney cited nu-
nerous legal authorities to sustain his
motion.
In reply Mr.. Biggs stated that the
question as u whether Mr.. Kenney was
counsel for the Bay State Gas Com
pany was a subject matter brought out
by the district attorney. who first in-l
trOduced Il into the trial. Mr. Vande-
grift had no grounds for such a CON
surprise. as the matter was within his
knowledge. Mr.. Biggs had never heard
Of such a proposition. III the case WAS
recpened after both sides had closed
and the witnesses discharged why
should il not be opened after argu-
ment had begun?
In his opinion ii would open a very
wide door and establish a very dan-
gerous precedent.
Taking up the line Of argument, Mr..
Bird stated that he agreed with his
colleague that so far as the state court
is concerned, it is an unheard OF propO-
sition. II the district attorney had been
taken by surprise he had a remedy II
the jury rendered a verdgct contrary
10 him, in moving a new trial. Mr. Bird,
in a strong speech, urged upon the
court that Mr.. VandegriN could no,
nave been taken by surprise, as he had
had the voucher in question, bearing
the names OF J. Edward Addicl1s
James L. Shaw and J. Frank Alice
upon il, in his possession an the time
and could have summoned any OF those
gentlemen at any time TO appear ana
prove what the voucher WAS given
for. He did not think IL WAS q maze
rial issue in the present case.
Mr.. Bird stated that he did not want
it understood that he feared the evil
dence that witness might give on the
subject but that the defense was not
prepared To answer it.
Replying to Mr.. Birds remarks, Mr..
Nandegriit stated that he wes not re-
sponsible for the fact that the attor-
neys forthe defense not having heard
cf such a proposition. IN his opinion
ii was a matter that addressed itseM
to the discretion Of the court. The dis
trict attorney added THAT he had noti-
fed the defense that night that the mo-
| ton to reopen would be made by him
to-day, thus giving the attorneys an
opportunity to produce authorities on
the matter. This they failed to do
Mr.. Vandegriit stated that he haC
never seen the voucher in question
until yesterday. Mr.. Kehney when h,
Stated that he had received the 10,
Shares OF Bay STATE Gas, said that
WAS given him for services as attorne,
for a private individual. He had screen
ed himself behind the privilege Of law
yers and did not disclose who his ellen
was. Mr.. Vandegrift cou-d not for a mo-
ment suppose that the defendant wouls
at the last moment aver that fhi
voucher had been given him by on
member or the company signed by tw,
others. thus paying an individual deb
Of a stOckh5lder with the company
stock and with the approval Of its di
rectors. IL was a prep0sterous and un
heard of defense. If witness We're pu
on the stand TO disprove this, he wa
satisfied that the defense should hav
an opportunity to produce witnesses q
the contrary If they saw iit.
The court said that jury trials couli
not be kept open all the time, and n
would have to decide the question
When Senator Kenney was called upO
TO explain the voucher the court wa
i'm considerable uncertainty on IN
question, as the contents Of the pape
showed transfer OF stock to the defend
ant to legal services of Mr.. Kenne
to the Bay SJlte Gas Company.
The. words TO legal services for en-
year do not state legal services q
/ whom. IL this had read ITO the Ba
State Gas Company the court won,
have no hcsitancy in ruling out Ker
ney's testimony ON the matter. Con
tinulng Judge Bradford said: "Afte
/ NfAiAAA 4 .*s4t@ A1unA lu lAlo IllNA Dt
casioned BY The word approved by
t, Edward Addicks, j. Frank Alice an
James G.. shaw j conciudcd to Del
. nit the defendant to explain for whr1
4 these services were performed. tn
! defendant stated that they were sci
! vices rendered 10 j. Edward Addiclu
: The district attorney now proposes
show that this statement was incoi
rect, and That the voucher represente
services to the Bay State Gas Compan.
In this case the district attorney stat,
A THAT he had never seem this paper III
.. I'll yesterday, which contains the name
OF the executive committee.
! The court thought that this was a
exceptional C1se and should be car
j, fully considered. That 1t WAS propl
: that the jury should be enlightened q
I, the matter and that the district alto
a. ney had but little time to lock into q
= subject. the court desired to have a
y material evidence in this case poesib
= to go before the jury. and If the d
y fense wanted to call any witness tn.
y would be permitted TO do So He th,
ordered the case reOpened.
r The defence noted an exception
- J. Frank Ale WAS then called 10 d
aHNl. IH.