The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-02-12
NEW ELEMENT In
THE MARTIN CASE
Attempts TO Bring New Evidence by
Cross.Examinstion.
THE HOPE or SECURING DAMAGES
Defense Insinuates That This Is the
Incentive of Much The
Jury Out Of Court While ObJec-
tions Were Being Made 80 Two
Weeks Pay Advanced.

Wilkes Barre, Feb. 1.-THE defense
injected a new element into the Mar
tin case at the beginning OF todays
session, by trying to show in the cross
examination that the evidence was In
some cases influenced by the hope of
securing damages from the govern
ment in the event of conviction.
Adam Lapinski, who was on the
stand when court closed last night,
was asked what country he came from.
Russo Poland" he said.
Counsel for the defense then asked:
"Do you not expect, in the event of a
conviction in this case, thatyou coun-
try will file a claim for damages
against the United States?"
IT don't know" replied the witness.
Ibid you not read in the newspapers
that such would be the case?"
Il can't read" said Lapinski. The
commonwealth objected to this line of
cross s-examnatlon, claiming that 1t
was not proper.
The defense contended that this mode
of cross-examination was adopted for
the purpose Of showing that the testi-
mony of the witness might be infiu-
enced by pecuniary consideration. The
objection was overruled.
The witness was then asked:
did anybody tell you, or read to
you, from the papers that you would
get money from the government IL the
deputies were convicted"'
mo. sir: don't know anything about
it," said the witness.
Thomas Paris. the next witness, told
the story of the march to Lattimer.
He said the men were unarmed and
orderly, and that they intended to
make no trouble. He stated that he
was standing near the sheriff when the
line of marching strikers was halted
He heard the sheriff say they could
not go on to Lattimer. At the first
shot, Paris said, he ran, but was struck
by a bullet when he was about fifty
yards from the deputies. The ball
struck him in the back of the arm and
passed through, while some bullets
pierced his coat. He was struck, he
said, by one of the shots fired after
the volley.
Michael Srochak followed Paris on
the stand. He told how about eight
of the deputies had followed the flee
ing strikers at Lattimer and shot at
them as they ran. 81 was standing
near the deputies said he, when the
firing began. A man fell dead by my
running After the volley about eight
of the deputies followed the strikers
for about thirty yards, shooting all the
time"
MAIER LOST A LEG. p
Andrew Maier, who lost his leg in
the shooting at Lattimer, came into the
court room on crutches, His right leg
is off few inches below the hip. He
said that he was not at West Hazle-
ton, but Joined the strikers further on
and marched to Lattimer. He could
not tell anything about what the sher-
iff said or did at Lattimer. He was
standing in the middle of the line when
the shooting commenced, and started
to run, but got a bullet in the leg and
dropped. He saw lots of others drop,
too. Maier said the shooting contn-
ued for a couple of minutes after he
was shot. He said he was out of his
mind for couple of weeks afterward.
The last witness of the morning ses-
sion was Martin Lachar. He said that
when he was at West Hazleton one of
the deputies had taken hold of him,
pushed him around and cursed him.
lie told how he had seen one of the
deputies at Lattimer kick Andre Maier
as the latter lay in the road with his
leg shot almost off.
The defense objected to this evidence
on the ground that the shooting was
all over, when the kicking is alleged
to have taken place, and the deputy
who kicked Maier had not been identi-
fed.
The argument was to the admission
of Lacher's testimony relative to a
deputy kicking Maier, the wounded
striker. The commonwealth side was
argued by District Attorney Martin
and Attorneys McGahren and Scarlet,
while Attorneys Lenahan and Palmer
spoke for the defense. The contention
OF the commonwealth was that a con-
spiracy existed to shoot and kill and
that according to law, all who were
implicated in the conspiracy were
equally guilty of any act performed
by one of them, and that as the kick
ing of the wounded striker showed
malice; it was competent testimony.
The defense contended that no con-
spiracy had been shown to exist, that
the act OF one man could only be con-
sidered as the guilt of that man, and
as the witness had been unable to
identify the man who kicked Maier,
his testimony was totally irrelevant.
Judge Woodward, in sustaining the
objection, said: 81 put my ruling on
ground which / consider legally i'm
pregnable. The position in this offer
is to show malice by both declaration
and act by a person who is not shown
TO be one of the defendants and after
tile shooting occurred"
The jury was not admitted to court
until after the decision was rendered