The herald., 1898-11-19
PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE
CLARK'S TESTIMONY SUSTAINED
BY OTHER EVIDENCE
OPINION OF JUSTICE YOUNG
Developments at Yesterdays Hearing.
Newly Disclosed Facts-Public
Sentiment Maintained

The preliminary examination of Joseph
Hunter on the charge of numbering Wong
Sing Hay, the Chinese laundryman, was
closed late yesterday afternoon, and Hunter
was held, without bonds, to answer to the
superior court. No evidence was offered III
behalf of the defendant.
Harry Clark's testimony alone would not
have been sufficient to justify the detention
of Hunter but corroborative evidence has
been pling up for the last two days, and,
notwithstanding the confessed perJuries OF
Clark, there was much to justify the belief
that Hunter was guilty as an accessory, II
not actually the murderer OF the Chinaman
When court reassembled yesterday Deputy
Sheriff Frank Davis was called to the stand
by Assistant District Attorney Williams,
and testified as to the hunt for the missing
man by the officers and the finding of the
body under Joe Hunters house. He ex-
pressed the opinion that one man, by brac
ing his feet against the floor timbers of the
house, could have dragged the body to the
point where it was found without assistance.
Al Barrel was next recalled. He said he
saw Hunter again Tuesday night, about 9
clock, when Joe came to his saloon with
AldIh He ldttcT uuu lTtdltu W WHlshy
and bought bottle to take away. He had
| money that night, but not on previous occa-
sions.
James M. Watson, a storekeeper at Eagle
Rock, being called, informed the court that
he knew nothing about the case and did not
know why he had been subpoenaed. Some
uncertainty arose as to whether Watson or
his father was the witness wanted but the
evident reluctance of the young man to res-
| tify justified the presumption that he might
cast some light upon the case, though not
| acquainted with the defendant or directly
cognizant of the circumstances surround
ing the murder OF the Chinaman.
Mr.. Williams, accordingly, asked the wit
ness "Do you recall the date of the mur-
der?" This being answered in the atfirma-
tive, he was asked: "Did you tell Detective
Brighton and +. B. Clark anything about
some men coming in wagon to your place
that mighty In response to this and other
questions, Watson said:
Eyes; told them that three men came to
my store at twenty minutes past o'clock
the next morning, stopped, and two of the
men got out and tried to get me to open
the store, as they wanted whisky"
COERCION ALLEGED
| Strenuous efforts were made by ATTORNEY
Jones on behalf of Hunter to ward off this
| line of questions, and it was with much diff
liculty that answers wer wrung from the
unwilling witness, but Mr. Williams perse-
vered and, turning to Jones, said:
owe will show you that you can't terrorize
the whole neghborhood, but that we are 60
ing to get this testimony"
Mr.. Jones sprang to his feet and protested
warmly against the language used by the
public prosecutor, characterizing it as pre-
judicial to the interests and rights of his
client and as conduct improper to be allowed
in the examination of any one against whom
criminal charge had been preferred, asking
that the words of counsel be taken down BY
the reporter.
Williams took up the gauntlet in defense
Of his mode of procedure, and offered to
prove that woman and her husband, who
were conversant with facts that ought to be
brought out at Hunters examination, had
said that they were afraid to testify.
Justice Young sustained the right of the
deputy district attorney to ascertain all
the witness knew that had any bearing on
the case, but cautioned him that he had no
right to ask him if he were blind or other
wise to mpeach the veracity of his own
witness when asking him as to what he had
seen.
Watson stoutly claimed that he did not
know the three men, was unable to say
whether Cleghorn, Joe Hunter or John
Nealis had been in the wagon, being unac
quainted with either of them, and on the two
former being pointed out to him, was una
BILE to identify them as his late visitors. AT
last Williams asked:
"Did you not tell Brighton and Clark that
the three men who came to your store that
night were in Joe Hunters wagon"'
The witness squrmed, finally nodded his
head, and, on being directed by the court
to answer the question, responded yes" lie
was forced to describe the vehicle, which he
said was heavy Concord buggy.
Mr. Williams next asked: "Did you not say
that you recognized Nealis, but did not know
whether one Of the other men was Joe
Hunter or not!"
Watson replied that Mr.. Clark had evil
dently misunderstood him. He had learned
that Hunters rig was out all night the night
of the murder, and that Nealis had raised
some kind of disturbance at AL Barrels
saloon and taken the rig. He had conse-
ouently told Clark and Brighton, as the rig
that came to his store late on that Tuesday
night was Hunters, Neais might have been
one of the three men, but that he could not
tell whether Cleghorn and Hunter were the
other two.
Mr. Williams, addressing the court, said:
"Our claim is that Nealis, Cleghorn and
Hunter were in the wagon" but before he
could complete his explanation Watson, who
was still on the witness stand, burst in with
the inquiry: "Why not Nealis, Cleghorn and
Clark?"
The interruption was so clearly indicative
| of bias on the part of the witness and so
presumptuous, in fact, that Williams turned
| narily on Watson and in the most scornf,,l