The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-02

knew Robert d. Lewis. the Young ma,
VINO said he positively identified Fra
hey as one of the murderers. Handlir
! said he saw Lewis about Is minute,
after the murder and Lewis told hin
| ABOUT running west with the two men
Attorney Naughton asked Handlin Il
/ Lewis had not told him that he coule
not identify either of the men. that hi
could not tell whether they had boards
| or not. that he could not tell what thei,
compilations was. that he did not set
their eyes as he was looking at the mar
| running ahead?
Handlin said that was what youne
| Lewis had told him, but after he testi-
| ned further he said that Lewis said
nothing about the mems eyes and that
the only thing ne did say was that he
could give the officer no description OF
the men except that one of them was
taller than the other and that he was
looking at the man ahead.
Did you hear the shots. and what
did you do?" asked Mr.. Baldwin on
cross-examination.
Il heard the shots and proceeded 10
where the shooting took place"
Did you attempt to pursue any of
these parties?'
People were coming out of houses,
and couldn't determine which way the
parties had gone
How long did you stay about the
BODY of the murdered man before you
started in search of the murderers?"
Il should judge about four or five
minutes"
Were you not suspended from the
police force for inefficiency and for
your incompetency that night?''
The question was ruled out.
Handiin said something about the
duty of policeman who should try and
get a description of men wanted for
crime.
Your idea of duty is to wait around
until somebody comes and gives you an
accurate description of the murderer"
Ihat question was also ruled out and
the witness was excused
william Jenkins, who might have
been the defenses most important wit
ness If he had not spoiled his testimony
on cross-examination, was next called
TO the stand. Mr.. jenkins lives at 10l
west Park street, about a block west
OF the scene of the murder His testi-
mony was in some respects sensational,
as he claimed that he saw the two muir
derers but that they were not Moody or
traney, but that he identified one of
them as another man whom he knew
and the facts of which he reported to
City Detective Murphy and other police
ofhcers. He testified that he was in his
room when he heard the two shots
11red. and he ran to the front of the
house and saw three men coming to-
ward him. The man in front was tall,
put the two running behind him were
short and stout and of about the same
size. He had a good opportunity to
observe the men as they passed. One
or them had a white cloth over the |
upper part of his face or around his |
forehead. The features of the other
man he saw quite plainly. The lower |
part of the face seemed to come to a |
sharp point, but the jaws were notice.
ably heavy. The next morning jenkins |
was eating breakfast in Hamilton |
street restaurant and saw a policeman |
go by with two prisoners and he in
recognized one of the men as
one or the men he saw run by his house
the night before. The man was neither
traney nor Moody. Jenkins said he
went to City Detective Murphy and
told him about it, but at this point of
MS testimony the court shut him off.
Have you had an opportunity to see
and observe the defendants, Franey and
Frank Moody" asked Mr.. Naughton.
Yes, l have seen both"
What do you say as to their appear
ince resembling that of the two men
Aho ran past you that night"
Il was in the court room during the
Moody trial and had number of differ
mt views of him and / could see no
resemblance at all between him and
my of the two l saw that night. AS
N5diuo " L dIty Il uOIl luenIlIX nm
IS any one of the two I saw that night
they were both shorter and stouter
han Franey."
How do the two men you saw on
hat night compare with Moody and
'raney?"
They don't compare at ALL"
Jenkins said the two men wore mack
ltoSheS.
On cross examination by Mr. Bald
lin the witness spoiled the whole effect
his testimony and made it not only
Improbable but ridiculous. He said the
lrd man, who ran in advance. was the
ne who wore a white cloth over his ,
ace. and that he identified him as O. ,
Blodgett, a former attorney in Butte, ,
nd that was the man whom he re- ,
FRED to when he said he informed the !
olice the next day. All the testimony {
the case, with the exception of that !
Jenkins, showed beyond all question
doubt. that the man who was run
ng ahead of the two robbers and
urderers was Henry kroeger, the
ordered mans brother. who was run ,
ng and crying for help. Jenkins said !
: had better opportunity to see the ,
en- ahead than he had TO see the two :
no followed. He also testified that he y
w the men through glass door.
You swear beyond all question that y
e man whom you identified as Mr.. u
odgett was not kroeger?" asked Mr.. Z
lldwin.
Yes, swear to that. 1t could not u
we been Mr.. Kroeger or he would u
We stopped, for he would have
own that l would have protected
M"
Jenkins said he did not see young a
wis join the men who were running n
d did not identify him as one of the 2:
IN who ran past his house. h
Mr.. Baldwin asked the witness whom &.
was talking with in front of his In
use at the time the men ran by. The n
man blushcd and hesltated about n,
swering. The question was repeated. =,
A friend, he finally replied. IL
Who was it?''
The defense objected, but the court
stained Mr.. Baldwin. for the reason
1t it would be important to know If
re were other witnesses to the trag- 81
7. +
l can give her first name" answered I'll
witness 1T is Fanny" al
Fanny WHAT" to