Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-06-03
COUNTY WARRANT CASE
Mr.. VAN coTTS OPENING STATEMENT


The county warrant case Is proceed
ing very slowly before Judge Hiles and
jury. much Of the time being con-
stunned in arguing legal propositions.
After the Introduction Of documentary
evidence. showing the actions Of the
county court with respect to the furni-
ture deal. the plaintiff, late yesterday
afternoon. rested.
MIR. Van Colt then made an opening
statement Of the case in behalf Of the
defense. He said that the defense
would prove that one OF the selectmen
had been bTlbed, and that the furniture.
for which S5J,000 was paid was not
worth So 900. He also called attention
20 various articles OF furniture in the
court room, and gave both the market
and paid price of the same. Mr..
Van Colt desired the jury to
understand that the defense did not
claim that Judge Blair was In any way
mixed up In the deal; that although
he was chairman Of the county court
MIR. Van Colt believed him Ignorant
of the alleged fraud.
The first witness called was II. V.
Meloy, who was county clerk at the
time the contract for the furniture was
let Judge Ellis OBJ lted to the intro
duction of amy testimony tending to
prove fraud or an excessive price paid
for the furniture. Counsel contended
that the county court had never res
Cindod the contract neither had re-
turn OF the furniture been made Much
time was consumed In the argument
Of this point, at the conclusion OF which
Judge Ililes overruled the objection.
Mr.. Meloy was then examined and
stated that he had never made any
record of the contact and schedules
- hi a..
until some time afterwards.
MIR. Meloy was asked by Mr.. Van
Colt when the contracts were signed,
with n view Of showing that they Were
signed at the rooms Of Martin Hayken
at the Knutsford hotel. Plaintiff OBJ
iected to this question on the ground
that Mr.. f.. Auerbach would not be
affected by any fraud or collision be-
tween the county sclectmen and An
drews & Co, Auerbnch being an inno-
cent purchaser of the same.
Judge Hlles overruled the objection
holding that Mr. Auerbach stood in
the same position as Though Andrews
& Co We're the parties to the suit
Judge Jacob b. Blair was next called.
He testified that he wns probate Judge
and eN ofiicio chairman of the county
court during the years 1894, and that
he had no knowledge OF any kind con-
| corning the furniture contract neither
was he advised or consulted by the
selcctmen. with reference to the maxi
| ing of the contract.
C. S. kinnersley was then called and
examined az to what the term list
| prices meant
Mr. Van Colt then offered the de-
| position Of Martin Hayken. This was
| objected to by Judge Ellis on the
| ground that the county should not be
| permitted to show the fraud
| on the part Of Hayken
| and the selectmen in making the con-
tract, unless the county offered to re-
| turn the furniture or to plead recOup-
ment. Judge Hiles oyerruled the OBJ
! lection pro fOrml, stating that he
| would later consider a motion to strike
out such parts of the testimony as
| might come within this objection.
Martin Hayken's dispositions were
being read when the News" report
| closed.