The sun., 1898-12-15
k[ANEY l6AlA REENH)
Contiausd From Page One.

y sSAANcN AsO cos lOI q cuVit bfulc uuIlU
ticed with his eyes riveted on the floor
Today he will come into court to heal
the conclusion of the district attorneys
address.
The surprise In the way of a motion BY
District Attorney Vandegrift that the
case be reopened was made as soon al
court opened in the morning. He re-
quested the Court to declare the case re-
opened SO that for the benefit Of the jury
he could present evidence contradicting
the statement made by Senator Kenney
at the close Of the case Tuesday after.
noon, that he had received the retainer
OF 800 shares Of Bay State Gas Company
from J. Edward Addicks and not from
the Bay State Gas Company. .,
Mr.. Vandegrift said he was surprised
at the testimony of the defendant, fol-
lowing the production of the vouchel
Tuesday afternoon, and as soon there
after as possible sought to obtain proc
that the retainer was what it purporteG
to be. He said he made an effort Tues
day night to inform counsel what be
proposed to do, but as he was unable tc
communicate with them, had put in
their hands yesterday morning a list o.
authorities he proposed to cite in support
OF his motion, which authorities he read
Mr.. Biggs of counsel for the defense
objected to the district attorneys motion
to reopen the case. He thought to re-
open the case at this stage would open q
very wide door and establish a danger.
GUS precedent. Mr.. Bird also opposed
the motion. He said it was an unheard.
of application. Mr.. Bird claimed that
he and his colleague or client were not
afraid of any testimony that might be
given, but were not prepared to answer it.
District Attorney Vandegrift in his
final argument for the reopening of the
case said that the whole matter addressed
itself to the discretion Of the Court. He
thought the jury entitled to all the in
formation obtainabie concerning the
voucher which he had seen for the first
time Tuesday. Mr.. Vandegrift said he
did not know wheu the voucher was
produced, what any of the men who had
approved the voucher could say about it
and did not speak OF having them sum
moned at that time. If he should be al
lowed to put his witnesses on the stand
and they should give different testimony
from that OF the defendant, he (the dis
trict attorney would favor giving coun-
sci for the defense time to produce anv
additional evidence on the peint if it was
desired.
The court decided that the ease should
be reopened. ....,
In rendering his decision Judge Brad
ford referred to the explanation OF Sena-
tor Kenney regarding the voucher and
said at the time there was a great deal
of uncertainty in the Courts mind, as
the contents Of the paper, showing a
transfer of stock from the Bay State Gas
Co, to kenney and Kenney's bill for legal
services, did not state for whom the
legal services were
After considerable doubt on this peint,
occasioned very largely by the words
Approved, j. Edward Addicks, ],
Frank Alice, James q. Shaw, executive
the Court thought it
proper that the defendant should be per-
nitted to explain what those services
were for. If there had been no doubt,
after reading the paper, the testimony
would have been ruled ont. Judge Brad
ord referred to Kenney's explanation
hat the transfer was made on account of
ervlces for j. Edward Addicks and
'alled attentn to the fact that the dis
riot attorney wanted the case reopened
or the purpose of endeavoring to dis
redlt this statement. THE district at
orney," the Court explained, Estates
hat he never saw the voucher until YES
erday and that Treasurer Miller of the
Say State Gas Co.did not know what the
took was transferred for"
Judge Bradford considered the case an
exceptional one. He deemed it proper
hat the jury should have all of the evil
ience concerning the voucher, and as
he court wants all evidence material to
he issues in all cases to 20 to the iurv in
ach case, in the present case if the de-
ense wants time for the production Of
witnesses the court will enter.
ain such request. The defense noted an
x,cc,eaptlon to the ruling of the court.
me decision having been rendered
district Attorney Nandegrift called to
ne witness stand J. Frank Alice, Of
Dover. We
In reply to Mr.. vandegrift's questions
ar. Alice said, as member of the execn-
i've committee of the company, he had
pproved the voucher. The comnanv
hought it would be advisable to have
ounsel down the State to protect its
interests and prior to the date OF the
oucher, July !, 1896, at the request of
ar. Addlcks, the president of the com.
ANY, he saw Mr.. Kenney.
AT Mr.. Allee's suggestion Kennev
vent to Philadelphia to see Mr.. Addicks,
>enney, Addicks and the witness had a
onterence in Addicks office, and there
Aenney was retained as counsel for the
'ay State Gas Co. Alice did not hear
ny other subject under discussion con-
ernl,ng the retainer. He did not hear
nythlng said about Kenney being re.
aimed as counsel for Addicks in anv
ivorce proceedings.
The district attorney asked the wit.
less il the executive committee would
ave approved the voucher If it had been
0 pay the bill Of an officer of the com
any, but the question was ruled out.
'Dld this defendant act as counsel for
ne company?' Mr.. Vandegrift asked.
well" the witness explained, "the
xlgencles which the company antici.
ated did not arise and it did not re-
eve any, services" Mr.. Alice said that
D Tar as he knew the retainer was NOT
INV
Mr.. Bird continued the crosse examina-
ION, and in reply to him, witness said
here was no legislation for n, oo.,;,,al