Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1898-06-22
LIVELY At THE CLOSE
Monotony Broken in the
Eastman-Finch Trial.
QUESTION OF VERACITY
Messrs. NJ j. Eastman and q. Is. Brickley
Flatly Contradict Each other In the
Matter or Attempted bribery.
. Rigid Cross EAa NINA IIon.

AiS PAoSSSdlh6o III the LaS(nla
Finch damage suit We're rather monoto.
nous yesterday till late in the evening,
when MIR. G. b. Brickley was put on
the stand by counsel TOR the defense
Up to that time the attorneys had beer
Wrangling all day over various legal
points that put the spectators to sleep.
out Wheh the cross examination or
Witness Brlcllley began every inan in
the court room bent over to catch each
word
1t Will be remembered that Mr.. Nj. J..
Eastman was called to the stand last
FRIDAY by the defense. who in the out
Set VARIED him that they proposed to
contradict him. Among the questions
put to Mr.. Eastman was whether or mo-,
he had offered !; bride to Mr. &. g.
Erickley to testify in his behalf. MI
Eastman replied that he had not, adj
ding That amy statement to that effect
was "a diabulical lie. When asked
Why he did not have MIR. Brickley to
testify in his behalf Mr.. E.astman's an
swer was: Eecause | consider him as
crooked as The old boy himself" That
was the reason the spectators and the
jury as Well were anxious to hear what
Mr.. l:rickley had to say. A Synopsis
OF the witness testimony will be found
below
The counsel for the. defense have no.
rested their case yet. ana have not In,
tiinated when they expected all OF
their testimony would be in and it looks
as il the case will not be given to the
jury before the latter part nf the week
Among the witnesses for the plaintiff
in rebuttal Will be Attorney X. N
Lett to whom it is claimed Mr. Birch
ley made certain statements.
Objection was raised to nearly every
question propounded TO Mr.. Davl=
and there was considerable delay lE
taking his testimony. When court took
a recess for dinner Mr.. Davis was on.
the stand and when court again con-
Nened he was again called to the stan0
and Kept there for an hour. On cross
examination witness said that when hs
went to work for Mr.. Finch he stpuia
ted in the contract that he (Finch}
should furnish his (witness) men with
all the lumber needed. as part of the
Scaffolding had to be rebuilt.
MIR. FINCH ON THE STAND.
When Judge Barham opened court
yesterday morning Mr.. Finch was
placed on the stand again. Fer
over an hour the witness was subject
r~eda,to a rigid +cross-examination. The
witness had with him two pieces of
timber which he claimed We're parts of
the putlock that broke on the day of
the accident. and when asked what he
did with the other piece Of the timber
witness said he destroyed it as fire
wood Among other things Mr.. Finch
said that he might have told Mr.. Gar
that a broken putlock caused the
fall. that the piece of the putinck-s des-
that three times since the accident al
tennis had been nade 10 break in us
office to get evidence he supposed. and
for that reason he had the putlock cut
SO he could pack it in his loft, that he
rosuas from stealth. II. that he did moi
regard II IF any great value ana that
he never thought it would he Of any
advantage to him. that he nut III. tim
man Intended to bring suit.
II ~ DAN-JS. Il" r..
Mr.. r. w Davis a brick contractor
was the next witness lie stated that
in his experience it had been the Gus
tom of br;,..slayers to raise their own
scaffold. that the general custom de-
pendel upon the contract and that he
completed the work on the Finch
building after the accident. The wit
ness was not permitted to explain the
objection Mr.. Rickford said: ..This
nestion is objected to on the ground
that counsel for the plaintiff do not be-
iieye Mr. Finch is such a devil incar-
nafe as to ask another man to go on n
scofrold no huilt himself and for the
further reason the question has moth
ing To do with the case"
L. NJ. HARRIS.
Mr. r.. M Harris who has been a
bricklaver for twenty-eight years, was
worked on the Finch building after the
accident: that he found some of the
nutlocks was missing: that he did no;
consider mart Of the scaffolding proper
" CONSTRUCTED for the reason the put
locks we're too far apart. that in chang
ing the scaf7olding he put in three put
locks for one: that a skilled brickmasor
ought to have observed the scaffoldins
was not properly constructed: that the
foreman Of the brickmasons generally
sees 10 it that the scaffold is secure
that he found plenty Of lumber around:
the building when he went to work
the morning after the accident
Cross-examined by Colonel Boy
kin witness said that in constructing
the scaffold he would not use putlocks
that had knots In them.
J. II. NOLAN.
The next witness was Mr. J. IT. Mo-
Ian, of Petersburg, va, and he stated
that he knew Mr.. Walter Eastman