Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-05-22
SAYS L|PSOM
PUT UP THE JOB
BARTLETTss VERSION OF THE
CONC0CTI0N OF THE FAKE
ROBBERY PLANS.
SAYS LIPSOM KICKED IN
THE BASEMENT DOOR.
Bartlett Borrowed $4,000 From His
Wife and Paid Her on Eve Of
His Bankruptcy.

= uHsNys
In the Bartlett perjury case yesterday
Sam LipsOm told the story of the Bart
lett fake burglary, alleging that Mr.. and
Mrs. Bartlett put up the job. Today Mr..
Bartlett swore that it was Lipsom who
cOncocted the plans for the alleged rob-
berry, in order to help the Bartletts out
of their legal rouble regarding the
money in thej possession Of Mrs. Bart
lett.
The cross-examinatiOn of Lipsom was
taken up yesterday by Attorney Cotter.
The witness went over the story OF the
alleged burglary Of Bartlett's house.
Mrs. Sarah Lipsom, his wife, also cor
roborated in part the testimony of her
husband.
Ex-Captain of Police Dawson testified
to having mad an examination of the
Bartlett house after the fake robbery.
Ras Rochester testified that LipsOm had
told him hat he was going to make it
interesting for Bartlett.
George H.. Thomas testified that LIP
som had made the remark to him that
Bartlett had not treated him right and
he was going to get ever with him.
Mr.. Thomas was recalled when the
trial of the case was esumed this morn
ing. He admitted that he was associ-
ated with Mr.. Rochester in a mining
Attorney COOmDe was Fecdlleu LUZ IAc
defense. He said he had acted as attor-
ney for Bartlett in preparing his sched-
ule of assets and liabilities.
AT the time the schedule was being
prepared did he make any statement
about any money that had been paid his
wife," he was asked. =,
HE did. He stated that he had pald
his wife a debt of about $4,000
After making this statement to you
did you, as his attorney, state that II
was not necessary to make any suate-
ment in the schedule Of this money!
"Yes, sir
What advice did you give him?'
THAT it was not necessary that ne IN
clude this money in his assets, as 1t had
already passed out of his hands"
On cross-eXamination Mr.. Rodgers ASK
ed the witness if he was not aware tnat
It was merely a subterfuge of Bartletts
to keep the money instead of turning II
over to his creditors. He said he ara NOT.
Asked if he did not know that under the
laws it was not lawful for a man 70
transfer money to his VIE on the = W
his bankruptcy. This question was op-
jected to and Mr.. Rodgers read the set-
ton Of the bankruptcy law relatlve 70
the transfer Of property or money. Judge
Knowles sustained the objection: \.
Asked if subsequent 70 the nllhs =
the petition he had had any converse
ton with a lawyer named Barlow ne
said he had. but that it was merely IN
connection with a claim OF Barrow 5.
Barlow had been attorney for baftiett
and seemed to have some feelng asaihs.
him, He had never stated to Barrow
that Bartlett's money was conceaieo III
a safe place.
Sam M. Bradford corroborated George
II. Thomas testimony relative to Lip.
som stating to Thomas that Bartlett nad
not treated him right n he would give
him the worst of 1t.
M. P. Gilchrist, an attorney, TESTIFIED
to being present at a conversation be-
Rochester,, in which Shelton had re-
marked that if Rochester would give
him certain testimony he would dismiss
a suit against Rochester. In justice to
Mr.. Shelton, however. the witness said
that Mr.. Shelton had said that he did
not want manufactured evidence.
Col. J. H. Rowe also testified to a
conversation between Rochester and
Shelton. Shelton said that if he would
testify that H. r. Bartlett knew that F.
A. Bartlett was insolvent at the time of
the sale he could hold H. r. Bartlett and
the bank to dismiss the suit against
Rochester. The latter said he could not
testify to that.
Rowe was not cross-examined.
The defendant, Fred A. Bartlett, was
the next witness. He testified to the
business transac tions with Renshaw, the
sale of goods to him and the receipt of
the money which he said he paid out to
eastern creditors. AS to the Rochester
sale, he said he received Sc, 344. % in
money and checks. He paid his wife
$3,O17.25 in cash and gave her a certif-
cate of deposit for $1.770 on the First
National mi He also paid a note for
81, 500 at the First National oar and
$50 interest. Mr.. Bartlett said he had
borrowed the money from his wife be-
tween October. 1896. and March, 1898. On
the 18th of March, 1898. he had given his
wife his note for $3.50. His wife had
placed this note in her trunk and it was
mislaid for a long time. The note was
offered in evidence. He first received
money from his wife in October, 1896
when he became interested in business
at the corner of Park and Main streets.
He had obtained it in small amounts
the smallest being 5000 and the largest
$500. Mrs. Bartlett received $4,000 as a
wedding present in February, 1896, and
kept the money in her trunk until it was
all loaned out to her husband. He had