The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-12

Bow county. Montana"
Mr.. Scallon objected to all hat part
Of the offer upon which no testimony
had really been offered. and Mr.. Nolan
said he, had set IL all out in order TO
avoid the necessity Of putting more wit
nesses on the stand. Mr.. Scallon in
sisted on his objection. and MIR. Nolan
again called j. w. Bacher to the wit
ness stand.
when was 1t that you left Scatter"
asked Mr.. Nolan.
Mr.. Scallon objected to the introduce
tthe admissions of the attorney general
that the testimony. or any, would be In
admissible unless the deposition was it
self admissible i'm evidence.
Mr.. Nolan insisted that he had the
right to offer proof In order to make up
a record to present to the supreme
court on a review of Judge Clancy's
ruling. He thought the positions taken
by Mr.. Scallon at different stages were
Inconsistent.
The court overruled Mr.. Scallon's OBJ
lection. and then the attorneys for the
defense agreed that the evidence in
the offer originally made by Mr.. Nolan
might be considered as introduced. The
offer was then read and objected to and
sustained by the court on the ground
that the offered evidence was incom-
petent.
The state rests, announced MI. Noi-
IN.
Mr.. Cotter then submitted the fol-
lowing instruction for a verdict of not
guilty. which the court read to the
jury:
Gentlemen of the jury, o are here
by instructed that in this action the
plaintiff has closed it's testimony, and
that no evidence has been introduced to
show that any crime whatever has
been committed by the PENDANT or
either of them. There is I'm this case
NJ sufficient testimony to warrant a
conviction of any crime whatsoever.
You are therefore advised that you
should acquit the said defendants and
that you should return a verdict in
thi, action of not guilty as to both de-
PENDANTS"
To the instructions Mr.. Nolan took
an exception in behalf of the state.
The jury then retired in charge of the
bailiff and i'm a n or w brought
in the verdict:
sworn to try the above entitled cause,
find the defendants. NJ. l.. Wines and
Edwin S. Booth. not guilty.
You don't desire this jury polled, do
your" inquired the court. = ~
mo. SIR said the attorney general.
AT the request of Mr.. Corbett the
court made an order generating the
utlt1uditS o'N ~ to'N '
at an end.
William Parmerlee, the Seattle at
torney, who was a witness in the case,
desired to return home and to avoid
the necessity of his return to Butte to
testify in the disbarment proceedings
the attorneys agreed that his deposit
tior might be taken before w. w.
Johnston, and that it should be used
and have the same effect as If the wit
ness had personally appeared and tes-
tined before A. j. Campbell, the referee
appointed by the supreme court. His
testimony was therefore taken immed-
lately after the disposition of the Grim
inal case.
do you know a gentleman by the
name of j. W.. Bacher?" asked Mr.. No
Ian of the witness.
81 know a man who is known by the
name of Bacher, but lie was known TO
me i'm Seattle as Ed Laney.'
when did you see him in Seattle UNI
de. the name of Ed Laney?'
Il think it was last October or NO
vember."
Under what circumstances did you
see him?"
The witness said that as the states
attorney had been busy In the trial OF
a murder case he was requested TO rep
resent the state of Montana at the TAX
ing of the deposition. The commission
had been issued to Mr.. Ronald, but
was by him turned over to Mr.. Bolster.
Laney was sworn and answered the
int~errogatories submit led to him In the
presence of the witness.
Were you present when he signed
the deposition"
Il think l was, but l can not say tha'
l saw him sign it,"
The witness said that he had a con
versation with Laney before he gave
his testimony and asked him why he die
not go to Butte and testify instead o.
making a deposition, as the county at
torney had offered to pay all his ex
: penses to and from butte. Laney re
piled that he didn't want to return t.
} Butte, as he was on his way to attend
the races in California. Mr.. Parmerie'
: said there was no question about Lane!
D and Bacher being the same person.
on cross-examination by Mr.. Corbet
! the witness said he questioned Bache
! because a letter from Mr.. Connoll,
! suggested thai he look up the ma
: and learn as much about him as posi-
BILE. The witness agreed to secure MI
!. Connolly's. letter when he got back u
. Seattle and forward 1t.
> Did you have any suspicion as to h.
honesty"
: II had no suspicion that he was i'm
, p~ersonating another man, but j ha'
! some suspicion about him telling tn
|, truth"
I Mr.. Parmerlee said he came to Butt
soon after Bacher's arrest and met hir
in the county attorneys office and i'm
: mediately recognized him as Laney. bu
/. he denied that he was Laney. Som
: time after that he was arrested on
! complaint filed against him i'm Seattl'
charging him with perjury, hut he va
: not taken back to Washington.
8 WAS there n promise made to hir
at that time that he should have i'm
munity from punishment IL he woul
tell all the facts relative to the takin
. Of the Deposition"
mo. sir: not in my presence"
!. did you have any knowledge of sue
. a promise having been made him?"
. mo. sir" o.
. Did you ever hear IL talked about c
. discussed?"
Il did not"