El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-06-12
Raymond is an enemy of yours? Ii so,

| Alone OF the strongest tulAke o"oO
make me think he is an enemy Is q
couple of letters written by BOD Burcn
and Jeff Axis, stating that they nao
been approached and offered money 10
kill myself and Fall. 49,,
The prosecution objected on the
| grounds that the letters were hoU -
evidence, and the court sustalueu Ino
| objection unless the letters themselves
could be accounted for in some way.
Lee was asked if he knew wnsre .u
letters were and he said ne uIu Io.
Jndoe Fall WAS sworn and said he nad
recently searched for she letters, DuI
could not find them. He had seen 1ne
letters since they were recelVeu ono
had read them to the parties 14em
selves. The letters were dated III q une
| and July, 1896. ,o..,s
By Judge Fall: DID Inc les.eS
state as to who would pay the money
| Witness answered that his nnaer,
standing was that Numa Raymond nao
offered to put up the money.
Have you heard any talk IS 10 hey-
mond put ing up money against you!
prosecution objected; sustained; eA-
ception noted by defense.)
BY Judge Fall: Besides the witness
Maxwell, have you heard of any other
witnesses having been offered money
to testify falsely?
Objected by prose cution; sustalneo.p
GndSe Fall here stated that the DE-
tense proposed to show that the pro-
secution waited to prosecute lee,
although they had their case com plete,
until new administration came into
office and that they removed various
officials in order to put In TOOLS OF their
own.
Questions asked witt esses about the
removal or resignation of r. L. Young.
pursuant to the above, were objected
to by the prosecution; sustained; ex-
cepted.
evidence to the effect that Lee had
made efforts through his attorneys
prior to the Kesrney fight to arrange
ry, including Cstron, Bryan, and Car
rett, were opposing such bond. Pros
ecution objected. contending that only
/ the courts could be assumed to decide
whether bonds should be received or
not. Part Of the evidence was object
ed to as hearsay. The line OF exam1-
nation was not pursued.
MADE DEPUTY TO DISARM WILLIAMS.
Mr.. ,Childers asked witness how he
came 70 be deputy sheriff.
| son, there was good deal OF talk
around Las Cruces about Ben Will
Jiams-that he was bulldozlnR the
sheriff and making trouble generally.
The citizens were very indignant, and
when I went there had no more sense
than to let them appoint me deputy
| sheriff. l soon after d1sarmed Will
liams.
You were appointed especially to
take in Williams"
81 believe there was some talk about
\ it. I wouldn't tell him that"
\ In reply to a question by Mr.. Chill
ders witness said that Burch and Axis
we're offered five thousand dollars to
asked who had informed him that Ray
mond was going to put up the money
against him. Witness objected to
| bringing in the name of lot of citi-
zens, and asked counsel for the prose-
cution to refrain from questioning him
| in detail On that matter, saying that OF
course if questioned he would have to
answer, being under oath. He said
lit had been stated that Raymond was
to pay" Counsel for prosecution did
not press the question.
| JAMES WHARTON CALLED.
James Wharton was then called for
| the sdefense. He was resident OF
White Oaks, Lincoln county. and was
district attorney there in January,
1896. Knew Fountain, Lee and Nc
| New.
Asked what connection Col. Fountain
had with the indictments against the
defendants that were found at that
term of court, witness testified that so
far as he knew Fountain had nothing
! TO do with procuring the indictments
or trying the cattle cases that were be-
fore the court. Fountain was not be-
fore the grand jury at thatterm. Less
| Dow was working up the cases, and
| witness consulted with Dow and with
others, but not with Fountain. Foun-
tain did not appear in court in the pro-
secution of any cattle cases at that
term. Fountain had no court papers
relating to the cattle cases in his pos
session when he left Lincoln county
that Ia, no official records of documents.
The INDICTMENTS against defendants
| were dismissed when the cases came to
| trial.
Question by Judge Fall: Did the
| prosecution of these cases depend in
any manner upon Col. FOun tain?
| OBJECTED by prosecution; overruled.)
At did not.
The direct examination was here
| concluded and the prosecution began
it's cross examination.
| O.-What about the killing of Less
Dow? Was it before or after the next
succeeding term of court?
! A. 1t was before the term at which
| the indictments we're dismissed. l
| think it was before the next term.
| The objection here interposed by the
defense was overruled, the court stat
| ing that since il had been testified on
direct examination that the prosecu-
| ton of the cattle cases Was not depend
ent on Col. Fountain, 1t might be
! brought out on cross examination upon
what such prosecution did depend.
Witness testified that he did not con-
suit with Fountain regarding the cases,