Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-12-15
DELAWARE GAZETTE AND STATE JoURNAL-wIIad

voucher, WHICH had been executed over
6enhtor Kenney's signature, was n re-
taincr as counsel for the Bay State
Gas Go, and not as counsel for j.
Edward Addioks in q prospective di-
yorpe matter before the then approach
ing Legislature, ns the defendant stated
from the stand Tuesday. Mr.. Vande-
grl 1T said he had brought to the court
| q man who Knew all about tho trans
action and no desired to put him on
the stand. Mr.. Vandegrift said he
was surprised ut the testimony Of the
defendant following the production Of
the voucher, Tuesday, and as soon
thereafter as possible sought to obtain
proof that tho retainer was whatit
purrortad to be. He said he mnda nm
effort last evening to inform counsel
| what. he proposed TO. do, but rs he was
unable to communicate with them.
had put In their hands this morning q
list of authorities he proposed 10 cite In
support of his motion. which authori-
ties he reiid.
Mr.. Biggs o. counsel for the defence
objected 10 Mr.. Vandegrift's motion to
reopen the case. lie thought 70 reopen
the case At this stage would open q
very wide door and establish a dan
BufuhS prttcirbl' Mt. bHN e'sp Up
posed the motion, He said it was an
unhaird-of application. ar. Bird
claimed that he and his colleagun or
client were not afraid Of amy testimony
that might no given, but were not pre-.
pared tn answer it.
Mr.. Eandegrift, in reply, said the
whole matter addressed itself to the
discretion of the court. He saw the
stock certificate Tuesday for the first
time and thought tie Jury was entitled
to all information obtainable concern
ing IT. Hasnid he did not know yes
ter,lay what any Of the men who had
approved the voucher could say about
il aud did not speak of having them
summoned at that time. If he should
be allowed to put his witnesses on tho
stand and they shotld give different
testimony from that of the defendant,
he 1.-THE district attorney would favor
giving counsel for the defence time to
produce any additional evidence ON the
point II II was desired.
Tho Judge decided in favor Of Mr..
vandegrift. In giving his decision he
spoke OF the explanation OF Senator
Kenney yesterday regarding the voucher
and said at the time there was greBt
deal Of uncertainty in the courts mind,
as the contents of the paper, showing
o transfer of stock from the Bay State
Co. to Kenney and Kenney's bill for
legal services. did not state for whom
the legal services were. After consider
able doubt on this point, the Judge
continued, oceasioned, very largely BY,
the words Approved, j. Edward Ad-
dicks, j. Frank Alice, james g. Shaw,
executive committee, - he thought 1t
proper that the defendant should Be per.
mitted to explain what those services
were for. If there had been no doubt,
after reading the paper, tho testimony
would have been ruled out. The judge
referred to Kenney's explanation that
the transfer was made on account OF
services for j. Edward Addieks and
called attention to the fact that the
district attorney wanted tho case re-
opened for the purpose Of endeayoring
to discredit this statement.
Ths,distriet attorney, the court ex-
planned, states that he never saw the
voucher until Tuesday and that Treas
urer Miller of the Bay State Go. did
not know what the stock was trans
ferred for. a@
The court considered the case an ex-
ceptional one and deemed it proper
that the Jury should have all OF the
evidence concerning the voucher, and
as the court wants all evidence material
to the issues in all cases TO go to the
jury in each case, In tho present case
il the defence wants time for the pro-
duction of additional witnesses the
court will entertain such request.
The defence noted On exception to
the ruling OF the court, after which
VI, haI 4
Of Dover. in reply to Mr.. Vandegrift
witness said, as q member of the exeeu.
tive committee of the company, he had
thought it would be advisable to have
interests and prior to the date of the
voucher, July LIST, 1896, at the request
OF Mr.. Addicis no saw Mr.. Eenney,
wheat his suggestion Kenney went TO
Philadelphia to see Mr.. Addicks. Ken
ney, Addicks and the witness had a con-
ference in Addioks' office, and there
Kepney was retained as counsel for the
Bay State Gas Go. Al lice did NOT hear
any other subject under discussion con-
corning the retainer. He did not hear
anything said about Kenney being re
tanned us counsel for Addielss in any
divorce proceedings.
Mr.. Vandegrift asked the witness if
the executive committee would have
approved the voucher il it Ind been to
pay the bill Of an officer of the com,
pany, but the question was ruled out.
Ibid this defendant act as counsel
for the company" Mr.. Vandegrift
asked.
ssWell, q the witness explained, "the
eIigencies which the company antici-
pated did not arise and it did not re-
ceiYe any services. y 7
Witness said, SO far as he knew, the
retainer was never returned.
MIR. Bird conducted the cross
examination, and 10 reply to him, wit.
ness said there was no legislation for
or against the Bay State Gas Co. at
| the Legislature of 1897.
Mr.. Bird sought to show that,
although there was almost continual
Bay State Gas litigation In the Federal
court here, defendant had never acted
as counsel In any of the cases and had
never been consulted, Messrs. Gray and
H. II. Ward being the regular counsel.
Mr.. Yandegrift announced, after the
ross-examination Of Mr. Alice, that
he had no more witnesses. This was
another surprise, as it was expected,
on account Of the developments of the
morning, that he would call j. Edward
Addicks, but he did not de SO.
Is the oase closed nows" Mr. Bird
asked the court.
"Well,n the court replied, 81 hope
so. may say it is"
Judge Bradford, in commenting on
his ruling in which no reopened the
cpse, said he did not like to make such
4 nracelent, and be had only made the