The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-02-28


avenue?' asked Mr.. Hayden
'Mr. and Mrs. Lytle,' replied Sage.
rs Lytle white or colored?"
81 don't know" answered Sage heSi-
tatingly.
rs Mrs. Lytle a white woman or
colored woman?"
Your honor, we object to the insin-.
uations thrown out by counsel here,
interrupted County Attorney Jetmore,
jumping to his feet. These men have
lived in this county for years and are
known to be reputable citizens. This
may be the way of trying a case in
Jackson county, but it's something new
to us in this county. In fact. there have
been several things connected in this
case new to in this county,
rs that SOP" retOrted Mr.. Hayden.
Judge Hazen again raped for order.
Gentlemen, am getting tired of
this" said he. 'It doesn't matter about
the color of these people, and SUCH tes-
timony is not material Let's get down
to business and get some testimony that
has some bearing on this motion. I
don't believe in dragging the personal
affairs of any OF these men into court
for the purpose of injuring their reputa-
ton. don't want any more of this kind
of testimony, gentlemen. What 1 want
is testimony bearing directly on this
motion
CROSS S-EXAMINATION.
On cross examination Sage stated
that he had rented room upstairs at
522 Kansas avenue, and went upstairs
with Stevens for the purpose of going
statements made in his affidavit for the
state.
Louis James was the next witness
called by the defense, and proved hope
lessly disappointing. On examination
by Mr.. Hayden he enphatically denied
ever seeing Juror Stevens intoxicated
or hearing him discuss the Collins case.
Charles Aye was called as another
witness, but was not present. At this
juncture Judge Hazen -clared a re-
cess.
D,ri,or tho ,aoas. NJ C1oao-7 NJ
Hayden and John Collins engaged in
conversation in the judges chambers,
and when court was again opened Mr.
Hayden asked for additional time for
further conversation. Ten minutes was
granted.
At the end OF five minutes Mr. Hay
den walked to the court railing and ad-
dressed Judge Hazen. Eve have been
surprised by the testimony given by
the witnesses here this morning in re-
gard to the conduct of Juror Chas.
would testify as indicated by my QueS-
tions, and show that Juror Stevens was
drunk during the trial of the case.
They failed to do SO, and Mr.. GODDARD
and myself believe the evidence INSULT
cient to prove Mr.. Stevens drunk. Out
of fairness to Mr.. Stevens, we are will
ing that all testimony and affidaVits to
the effect that he was drunk be with
drawn"
II think the testimony has entirely
failed to show that Mr.. Stevens was
Hazen, land we will consider this fea-
ture out of this motion altogether"
BRINDLE'S AFFIDAVIT.
IF it please the COURT said Attorney
Stafford, rising, "some of the affidavfts
which have bearing on the alleged
intoxicatien aS q on. Of Mr sseYens also pos
that of Mr.. George r. Brindle. We have
an affidavit from Mr.. Brindle stating
that the affidavit he made for the de-
fense was brought to him already
W n Gi hxr hi
without reading. Also that he after
ward requested counsel for the defense
to withdraw it, but it was not done.
We would ask that this affidavit be
not withdrawn with the others in ref
erence to the intoXication of Mr.. Stew
ens.''
IF Mr.. Brindle stated that he signed
the affidavit without owing the con-
tents, we certainly don't want it with
drawn because such statement is absO-
lutely false" said Attorney Hayden,
hotly.
1--WE have his sworn statement to
that effect replied Mr. Stafford.
1t is absolutely false" reiterated Mr..
Hayden.
1.-The affidavit will not be withdrawn
said Judge Hazen.
THE STATES AFFIDAVITS.
On the statement of Mr.. Hayden that
the defense had no further evidence to
introduce at that time, County Attorney
Jetmore commenced to read the states
affidavits. The first four read were af-
IludNIlS Illeu lOQdy, one from =. l.. SClIl,
one from George r. Brindle, one from
John B. Jenkins and one from Thomas
Eby and ]. NJ. Hollenshade
The affidavit made by Still was in
correction of his affidavit made for the
defense. He said that in October 1898,
r. s. Butner, who was afterward one
of the jurors. was at the table with
John B. Jenkins and two other men,
He stated that he thought he heard
Butner say that he believed he done
it," or thought he done it, but ad-
mits that he was not paying much at
tention.
Jenkins states in his second affidavit
that he remembers a discussion of the
Collins case in October last at a table
in Stills restaurant when Butner was
present, and that he thinks Butner re-
marked that he believed John Collins
guilty. However, he says he could not
swear to the conversation.
In reference to the affidavit made for
the defense, Geo. r. Brindle in his sec
ond affidavit says:
1.-The affidavit was brought to me al
ready drawn up and was requested to
sign the same. I did sign the same
without reading it and without knowing
its contents, and 1 never swore to the
same or never was sworn by Mr.. Ward
as to the correctness of such affidavit -
He goes on to state that on last Fri
day, after learning that the paper had
been filed, he went to Mr.. GODDARD and
demanded that it be withdrawn and
that Mr. GODDARD promised him it would
be.
Thomas Eby and J. NJ. HoIlenshade
state in their affidavit that they were
in Mr. Brindle'S office when Attorney
Hayden brought the affidavit in, and
that they saw him sign it without read
ing it, and also that it was not sworn
to-
A few minutes before u o'clock Judge
Hazen adjourned court until 1:30 this
afternoon.
HOPEFUL FOR KIPLING.