Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-03-30

'"i'N v.
same time. however.
'Didnt you say NJ the preliminary
hearing that YOU saw F""' "'S
first ,,., -,
~ may nave zone. pi'"a"S ~"
iected better then 'than ! 40 nov, pu,
think w" or thrc" OF theni came '"-
gether. a., - 81,
Dld You see 'hi'' ir"'' ~ "'''
time ..,.,.
He was there that evening
Did h. ASK you VINO Hho' you
| Yea ,.,....
And dlh you say ~ tne pIcllniinhts
heating mat you toiu MN y"" "'""
know
y don't remember.
AT the preliminary nearing nin w
not say that you had told your ia'n w.
that you we're going 10 bufnhain ~ ". ~.
morning of the day OF the rh""unE
Il did not -
Did you tell Itnxw"pd ana i"'h''
that Jonc. had shot you
No. ! did not. A..
Before you employed Young Jones IN
Ohio. did you 20 TO his father OF
mother and ask them to urE" MN 70
enter your employ
NO. ! have no recollection OF n"lhb
that
"Whtn you came here ana went INTO
the banking business. how many shares
Objected 10 and objection sustained.
You were Indebted TO the bank al
the time of the nhooting1'
'Thcy had two notes 81 mine. one Tor
q. 400 and one for 1880.
"Did you have an ovcrdraft OF ss'oH
besides"
"No: the ovcrdraft was put Into n
note, and the bank owed mc $3.50 Tor
salary against what ! owed them.
rrilnqulshcd the 1900 the bank owed
mo. because there was no profits to
charge u 10. and tho bank examiner
had complained that the banks liabnl.
,l.- Mere b ,S' n,sn H., ~, ,,s IA, op,vs ia
me Just the same
"you eiened REIMBURSEMENT OF the
ssOO0g'
Il did
Here Mr, Brown offered the fehn-
aulshment IN evidence. II was oject-
oil 10 by Mr.. Putnam. and after argu-
mcnt. was admitted.
900 ,.,n,nrrnxraa rn uASi<
HIS iNphhrhpNhSS ~ ""''"'
ia II not true that you owed the
bank at that time more than $4,000;
mat NJ a matter of fact, YOU owed n
sge.Ooo9' asked MIR. brown.
The question was objected to ON the
ground tina, II was Irrelevant. lmma'
t.rial and not proper cxninlnn-
ilon.
The jury and the witnesses were cN-
cuEcd at this point. and the remaining
half hour u the day was occupied Va
arguments by Judge Henderson 10 show
that the question was proper, ana ny
Mr.. Putnam against - admission.
Judge Henderson took the position
that In order TO show the real caur" OF
the quarrel between Jones ana STOUT
II was necessary to no Into the annlrs
tho hauh aud ~ utIfl Wefe allowed
a. he done u would appear that the
rial difficulty was because the bank
examiner had taken Possession. ~ ne
had "a right to do 90 the Hedges not"
for $500, which II w. charged that
Stout forged and which Stout th0ught
Jones had. and was keeping from him
20 use In a criminal prosecution asainst
him. STOUT was shnous 70 "n,ain 'nas
note, and when ne DIDN'T gct ", on the
day OF the shooting, he was expecting
to be arrested. That's why he WANDERED
away I" North rhlt LAKE on inc gay
before. and To Murray on the day OF
the shooting. HIS ininh wa IN an I'M
settled state. Judge u.ndc'ron ar
gucd. To show these things, ne con-
tinued. wa. vital TO the case, because
u goes to show that Stout nal an OBJ
ject W accusing Jones OF nh"o,lng MN.
anu 'h,, ~ o,ues p sn, ~ ,nv,n, ~.
,ns s,a,Sms9t rsss' nn, on ~. ~. is AIS
pute .r'-Inx on, " sonss ~, nl's s,,, ~
iu.a' w. .anv s,n. jam WIN ss'"''"
H"wi 70 p,, ssus" yu"s, i'm ~. no,,,.
~, ~ ,o,u u,n hv I,,asa y,ana.,a ~ p aa 49,
whether INC ueukr. nol. was Io,scu or
n n"s ~ ,,s ,h,s ,"rv A. mas ,,non'
s,ouu ihnso,sn..' w. w oanh Wa