The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-11-21
Higgins Wanted Good Sum of Money
for Getting n switch Ordi-
nance Through.
COUNCILMAN NEGLEY ON STAND
HIS TESTIMONY NOT SHAKEN ON
CROSS EXAMINATION.
Incidents of the First Day of Evil
DEMONSTRATING that stand Out
from the General Routine.

Two incidents out or the ordinary &C.
CURED I'm the trial OF Councilman John NJ
Higgins in Criminal Court yesterday The
first occurred yesterday morning, when
witnesses Gates and Bowen, employees of
the Parry Manufacturing Company, were
called. 1t developed that these men had
been in the courtroom through the testi-
mony of Mr.. ID. NJ. Parry, contrary to
Judge Affords ruling requiring the ex-
ciusion of witnesses from the room.
Attorneys Span and Duncan for the de-
tense, made complaint that this was in
prejudice of the defendants right, to which
Prosecutor Pugh replied by declaring apol-
ogetically that he did not know all of the
States witnesses at sight, and that the al
lowing of Messrs. Gates and Bowen in the
room during the taking of testimony was
purely an unintentional oversight. Coun-
Gilman Harry E. Negley. of the First ward.
rected to leave the courtroom later in the
day. The witnesses named had not heard
OF Judge Affords ruling.
The other exciting incident was the dra-
matte assertion made by Henry N. Spaan.
and reinforced by John s. Duncan. that the
defense in the Higgins case will be fairly
and squarely denial that Higgins ever
had the conversations with ID. M. Parry
which the latter testified under oath he had
In the office of the Parry Manufacturing
company. I'VE do not intend to admit
that our client, Mr.. Higgins, said the things
attributed to him by Mr.. Parry" asserted
Mr.. Span. "and then excuse him by say
Ing 1t was only a joke or in pursuance of
plan of which Mr.. Parry did not under
stand the whole"
TIE CIRCUMSTANCES.
The circumstances attending the calling
forth of this declaration from the defense
were very interesting.
Joseph Schaf, of the American Brewing
Company, while on the witness stand
yesterday yesterday. afternoon afternoon, was asked by
man Higgins concerning an ordi-
nance pending in the Council which affect
ed the interests of brewers Attorneys
Spaan and Duncan instantly entered a
vigorous objection TO the eliciting of this
Kind of testimony, on the ground that
man charged with one crime cannot be
convicted upon evidence of an entirely
separate and distinct offense. Mr. Dun
can cited cases seeming to show that such
testimony can only be introduced in trials
in which there is some equivocation or
doubt to the identity of the accused or
as to the motive of the particular crime.
But In this case" said Mr.. Duncan,
there can be no possible equivocation
Our defense will be a fair and square de-
NAL that the defendant Higgins ever had
any such conversation that detailed by
the testimony of Mr.. Parry is true and
higgins did not say the things imputed to
him, then there could be no possible doubt
of the motive which prompted him to say
those things" Mr. Spaan added citation
to the long list adduced by his associate.
In opposition Mr. Elan made an elabo-
rate argument showing that there has
been tendency among courts of last re-
Indiana other States during
the past twenty or twenty-five years, TO
make progress along the line of the kind of
testimony admissible in criminal cases.
why" said Mr. Elan. although 1 have
been scarcely more than a casual student of
criminal law during my life, / understand
from my reading recently that ii is now al
lowable for the prosecutor to ask the ac-
cused II he has committed other crimes
than the one for which he stands indicted.
This was formerly denied" Mr.. Elan
cited an array of cases apparently directly
opposite to those offered by Mr. Duncan.
During this argument, which was very
spirited and interesting. the jury was alb
the discussion Judge Afford announced
that he would rule in favor of the state
and allow the defense an exception to his
ruling.
MR. SCHAF'S TESTIMONY
Mr.. Schaf testified that last spring he
was approached by Councilman Higgins in
the cigar store attached to Harry Walkers
w
why he (SchaD did not get Higgins to see
about fixing the ordinance then pending
in the Council relating to tax on brew
cries. Higgins declared, according to Mr.
Schaf. that he could have the ordinance
passed, and that the matter could be fixed
Tor $1,000 or $1,000. The defense did not
cross-examine Mr.. Schaf.
The proceedings OF the forenoon yester-
day were devoid of great interest until ID.
M. Parry, the States star witness was
called to the stand. The case was opened
by Prosecutor Pugh in a brief statement
detailing the alleged attempts to solicit
brides made by Councilman Higgins and
which are thoroughly familiar to the news
paper reading public Mr. Pugh related
the incidents surrounding each alleged at
tempt The first witness called was j. A.
Kelly, assistant clerk of the Board of Pub
lie Works. whose testimony was purely
technical, showing the dates of introduce
ton before and adoption by the board OF
the petition by the Parry Company for
permission to lay switch.
August Tamm, deputy city clerk, was
used to establish in the case the fact that
Higgins was duly elected councilman and
that he had taken the oatn or once as
such. Through Mr.. Tamm afso the Parry
switch ordinance was offered; also the re-
port or the committee on contracts and
franchises; also the part of the Councils
official record showing the passage of
the ordinances and Councilman Higgins's
statement of his intention to move to re-
consider the vote on the passage of the
ordinances; also Higgins's motion to recon-
slider that vote ana the disposition or the
motion, which was by a counter motion 10
lay IL the table. Mr.. Tamm not
cross-examined yesterday. the defense,
however. reserving the right to do so later
IL IL chooses.
MIR. PARRY ON THE STAND.
ID. Nj. Parry proved somewhat disappoint-
ing TO the State as witness. Although
he remembered distinctly having held GER
tain conversations with Councilman Hig-
ay;,c raiotfno IN tho auitch ordinanoa ba
was unable to definitely fix the dates of
such talks. The witness thought the first
talk with Higgins occurred about May
~ 1900 and the second some time between
June | and June T. 1900 On the occasion
of the second visit Higgins. said Mr.. Parry
announced that he had come once more
TO see about the switch ordinance; that
since the first conversation he (Higgins)
had been talking the matter over with
some OF his friends in the Council, and that
while he believed his first proposition of
$500 for each OF the five streets 10 be
crossed by the switch-making $1,000 alto
gether-was reasonable. he thought the or
dinance could be pushed through possibly
for 800 street-or $500 In the aggregate
Finally. continued the witness. Higgins
informed him parry that IL the money
were not forthcoming the ordinance would
not go through at ali. To this witness tes-
titled that he replied that he could not
do anything OF the sort "IIiggins In.
formed me-" said Mr.. Parry. that he was
sure money had been used by us with
councilmen for the purpose of putting the
ordinance through. and he said L can give
you the names OF them, and with that he