The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-01-27
TESTIMONY. IN THE TROY CASE.
Another Version of the Showing
Made by Expert Young.


Special Dispatch 10 the Post-Intsiligencer.
Port Angeles. Jan. "A.
In Sundays issue OF the ost-Intalligencer
appears a. communication from George G.
Hatch, prosecuting attorney Of Cla2lam
county. in which the doughty warrior pro-
ceeds to lack up your correspondent fo-
certain statements sent the Post-fntelh-
gencer relating 10 the Troy trial
Your correspondent now desires not only
to yelterate every statement he has made
In that matter but TO emphasize all that
was said in tho most positive language at
his command. In my former dispatch /
merely mentioned that Mr.. Young had
failed to account for eighteen giar.ng
errors out CT a total OF twenty-five items
considered at the trial. felt some
slight conlmiseration for the luckless ex-
pert when called on TO face his record in
. courtroom filed with spectators. many
or whom mad hitherto regarded him as bat
little inferior TO a god. and 10 have their
idol hurled from his lofty height was a
heart-rending reyulsion. In view Of all
these circumstances, was inclined 10
throw the mantle OF charity and Christian
forbearance over the scene when j sent
my dispatch. and said nothing Of Mr..
Young's dire confusion, trembling hands,
flushed face. tremulous voice and ineoher-
ent attempt to explain the errors OF his
report. But. alas. he has unwisely forced
his friend Hatch into print to bolster
up his work. and II becomes my painful
duty 10 not only sustain my veracity as
q correspondent. but 10 expose coniempu-
BILE attemp; to mislead the public by a Cub
bic and half truth.
In the beginning will state your corre-
spondent heard every word of the testi-
mony in the Troy case. and consequently
does not speak from hearsay. but fran per-
sonal knowledge. and kept track of the
testimony by making notes throughout the
whole trial
Mr. Young was put on the stand by the
prosecution on the first day OF the trial.
and on cross-examination he was handed
the books OF record and the fee books con-
tanning the twenty-five Items under con-
sideration. and in eighteen OF them he ad-
mttted then and there that the fees nad
been properly accounted for and entered
, OF record by Mr.. Troy.
just seven days after this inciden.
Thomas Pennimau was put on the stand
in rebuttal 10 the claim of the defense
that the report was mistaken as TO these
particular items. and the prosecution thus
had one whole week 10 clear up the matter
and show that the report was correct.
Mr. Hatch. IN his communication. says;
The state afterwards called Thomas
Tenniman. an accountant who assisted
Young IN the exporting OF the books, and
who personally did check the instruments
with the fee book, and he testified that
each and every enc OF these items was cor
rect. and that while Troy did charge him
self once in each ease. yet that each and
port was Of double recording and Tor
which Troy only charged himself once"
The clubbing and subterfuge of such
statement is woefully unhecomins one OF
Mr. Hatch's standing and the dignity of an
officer az the law. Mr.. Haten's version OF
the testimony stops just At the vital point.
aud he suppresSes the essentially impor
tant ending OF the testimony. AZ no time
ala Mr.. Pennimnn testify that he was per-
soaslly aware Of any duplication OF instra-
gnents. lie did swear that he merely
checked OF the different items in tho fee
book as Cot. Lyon read them from the
record hooks. lie was then asked II he
knew positively OF hts own knowledge IL
any Of the twenty-five items were duplI-
Gated aad he answered no" The defense
and che court then allowed him fun hour
and a half 10 search the records IL show
a single Instance among the twenty-five
items where there was a duplication In the
record book and only one entry In the fee
book. and he failed absolutely to do Il.
The attempt TO do 40 came TO a NEST lUdl-
crous ending. Air. Hatch. Mr.. Young and
Mr.. PUnntm8n. In the time allowed them
10 bring on their proof. INDUCED in some
wild hurYying and scuFryins hither and
thlshsr and evolved what they evidently
regarded A ciinceer. but they were routed
in confusion In the final outcome. They al
tempted 20 show "a duplication In record
% a mining" claim. but Mr.. Penniman.
on being asked TO read out To the jury the
s'cllnchcr." u turned out 30 I've water
claim iiled by the same party on the same
day. \ suppressed litter ran around the
cour: r0ogn as tAe despicabic attesnp; 10
ran such hluI on court and jury became
apparent and the prosecution made no
further attempt - bolster up the mistakes
Of Expert Young report.
TAuS. after a whole weeks tlu7e and hy
special indulgence 81 the court. the prose
cG7ton had every opportunity 20 prove the
| correc ness % the report as TO these items
| and 8; failed 20 do e. ara no amount az
| ScpAlstFY or suppression nv Young
friend. Mr. Hatch. can alter ghs facts as
/ thcy c3me out on she trial And Il Mr.
! Hatch wants further proof I car far
! niaa Alsa taa shart~ hSnd report ~ MF Pen
ninan testimony aud tire testimony az
| &Ay number of people VIA heard Mr.. PEN
| nlsuan sl}s esslenee
HORACE WHITE