The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-11-12
HAS NO EVIDENCE.
Owen Holds Conference With
Davis County Attorney.


Davis County Attorney.
Charles Mostyn Owen, the storm bu
reau affidavit-maker, and a compan-
ion. who was particular not 10 have his
identity revealed. went TO Harrington
yesterday morning to confer with
County Attorney Streeper, as to the
evidence in the case against Roberts.
The appointment was made for 1880,
but it was two hours later than that
when Mr.. Owen walked into the attor-
ney's office prepared to take up the
case.
Mr.. Streeper had been waiting for
more than an hour. and though he
knew the complainant was in Farm
ington, he was not able to locate him.
When Mr.. Owen entered the office he
was accompanied by a gentleman
whom he did not introduce, and the
county attorney, being 10th TO take up
the case with a third party present,
asked that their conference be private.
1t was then that Mr.. Owen said mis-
companion was a stenographer whom
he had asked TO accompany him.
OWENS Partner Bounced.
What Mr.. Streeper said about hav-
ing a stenographer present is not
known, as the office door was closed
at that juneture. but a moment later
walked out. He hung about the hall,
however. evidently determined to catch
what was said by attentively listening
to the sounds that came over the tran
som. To a newspaper man the stem
ographer said he was an attorney and
that he had been retained to assist Mr..
Owen.
1t was asserted this evening, how
ever, that he is a New York Journal
correspondent and that his name is
Upton. One thing is certain, his story
and that of Mr.. Owen do not agree,
and his efforts TO keep from being
known seem to indicate that he was
out to pick up something that would
put Mr. Streeper in an unfayorable
light
The interview between Mr.. Owen and
the county attorney lasted about an
hour and half. Mr.. Streeper did not
care to say anything about what trans
pired. but his reticence does not pre-
vent a pretty complete statement of
the facts being made.
Stornstarter at Sea.
One of the important matters dis
cussed was as to what the witnesses
cited in the complaint would testify to
if the case came TO trial. On this all
important point Mr.. Owen was sadly at
sea. When questioned closely as TO
what certain ones would say on the
witness stand the complainant invari-
ably said that he knew what they
could testify to, bat as to what their
testimony actually would be he did not
know. If they claimed not to know
what Mr.. Owen said they did they were
liars, was his way of summing up.
He cited as new witnesses Harold
Roberts, a son of Celia Dibble; Joseph
Evans and Walter Evans sons of Mrs.
Phoebe Evans. one Of the witnesses al
ready cited; David Evans. an attorney
of Salt Lake; Philo Dibble and family
of KaySyille Gayton), and Margaret c.
Shipp Roberts of Salt Lake.
Mr.. Owen withdrew the names of He
Der NJ. Wells and Robert y. Baskin.
who were cited as witnesses in the
complaint, and in explanation of this
course said they had been interviewed
for him and it had been found that
hey knew nothing of the facts.
Streeper Was Disappointed
Mr.. Streeper was very much disap-
pointed in the showing made by Mr..
Owen. The attorney had expected that
the complainant would be prepared
with facts to back up the charges he
had made, and when il was found that
nothing was known but what Mr.. Owen
had been told by another, Mr.. Streeper
demanded to know who the principal
informant was, that he might inter
view him and get at the facts.
The complainant az first fatty refused
to divulge the name of his informant |
but when he was met with the frank
statement Of the attorney that until !
something more definite could be pro-
duced the case could go no further he |
wilted and gave the name of the one1
that collected the evidence upon which |
the hope of a conviction is based This |
name could not be learned, but when
questioned concerning this phase of
the matter, after the close of the in |
tefview, Mr.. Streeper said the party !
would be cited as witness if the case
came TO trial. and before reaching any !
decision as 10 whether a warrant will |
issue, Mr.. Streeper will interview this
informant and find out just what he |
does know.
Gave Ludicrous Reason.
Alr. Ovens alleged reason for not de- |
string to divulge his informant's name |
was ludicrous. You know" he said. |
in response to the county attorneys
demand how this is. If anyone dares |
10 say anything against the church he |
IS outlawed, his property is de- |
stroyed''-
What" exclaimed the attorney.
We'll, he is outlawed. Stunned and |
oStracised by the church,
There was some warmth between
the attorney and complainant when
the IdlteE gave as q motive Tor his in
stituting the proceedings against Mr. |
Roberts that il was to enforce a law
that the public officials refused to en-
force. and which they are sworn TO !
uphold.
Mr. Streeper demanded to know what
law the Davis county officials refused" |
TO enforce. and the affidsivit-maker
quickly corrected himself by saving |
that they have neglected to prosecute |
cases such as those he is taking up.
Decides Against Owen.
At the clo,e of the interview Mr. |
Streeper was asked what the develop /
ments had been. He declined to dis /
cuss the matter in detail but said the
showing made by Mr.. Owen was not /
sufficient 10 warrant a prosecution. He
would now interview all of the wit
nesses and from what they could tes-
tify TO he would determine whether or
not q prosecution ought TO be made.