The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-06-10
DEFENSE OF HAWORTH
Testimony For the Prosecution
Is Concluded.
EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE
ATTORNEY WEBER DESCRIBES
INTERVIEW WITH HAwoRTH.
(specIal Corres2ondence)

Pennington, June Elm the Haworth
murder trial today the state completed
its case and rested at 10 a. m. The
remainder of the day has been occupied
by the defense, principally in rebutting
the states evidence of the ownership
of the overcoat that has been men
toned so frequently in the case.
The only witness examined for the
state this morning was o. S. Rice of
Hooper, who was called to Identify the
Overcoat which was found by Eetective
Franks with a mask in the pocket. The
witness said he knew defendant as a
horse trader and had seen him wear an
OVercOat like the one shown to him by
counsel for the state.
To Mr.. Hamilton witness admitted
that he might be mistaken as to the
coat. but said it was one similar in
color and make to the one in evidence.
The witness, under cross-examination
became considerably confused.
States Case Closed.
The state then rested it's case. This
seemed TO be a surprise to the attor-
neys for the defense, who apparently
had expected more testimony to be in
tTOduced. At Mr.. HamiltOn's sugges-
ton a recess for half an hour was taken
to allow the defense to prepare the or
der of calling their witnesses.
On reassembling A. ]. Weber, Ha-
WOrth'S attorney, was called to the
stand and examined by MIR. Hamilton.
At the outset the line of questioning
indicated that the defense desired to
show that Sheriff Abbott had not al
lowed the attorney and his client the
requisite freedom in the matter of pri-
vate consultations, but this showing
was checked by an objection of Mr.
Allison, who argued the irreIevaney of
such testimony. The objection was sus-
tanned.
Witness then testified that he was
employed as Haworth's attorney in
January of this year, after the prelimi-
nary examination, and that he first met
his client during that month; had pri-
vate consultations with him in Febru-
airy and March. On March 81 witness
went to the Jail and talked to Haworth;
the subject Of the confession came up
and defendant said he had pleaded
guilty TO Abbott and that after the
sheriff had written what he said he had
said it was true. Witness denied the
statement made by William Broadly on
the stand yesterday to the effect that
defendant had told witness he was
guilty.
What Haworth Said
Mr. Weber here explained that what
the defendant did say was: II have
told Sheriff Abbott that I am guilty
and that is enough and when WITT :
put the question to him pointedIy.
your mother were here now, wou1 -
tell her you are guilty of that
defendant had answered No" Tho.
great desire of defendant was {, /
out of jail and he was ready to ID
guilty to accomplish that end. Witness
had told HawOrth that such plea
would mean hanging or shooting, but
defendant did not think there was any
danger Of that
To Mr.. Allison witness said he knew
there was some person in the Jail dur
ing the consultation with his client, but
had not thought of the conversation
being overheard Witness admitted that
what HaWOrth told him made him an
CRY and that he called his client "a
id fool" and several other things; he
was not angry now, however, and
would do all that duty required him
TO do for his client. The cross-exami-
nation developed the fact that Broadly s
testimony, given yesterday, was a fair
Iy accurate account of the converse
ton between attorney and client. the
only material divergence being on the
question of HawOrth telling Mr. Weber
he was guilty, witness maintaining that
qefendant said: I told Sheriff Abbott
was guilty.
Detective E. A. Franks was recalled
by the defense to give testimony as to
the odor arising from the greasy old
sack that had been used as a mask.
Witness said the Odor of ham was not
SO distinct now. The point in this tes-
timOny is that a witness for the state
has testified that he lost a sack that
had contained ham from his wagon.
north of Layton, on the night of the
murder.
Not Haworth's overcoat.
D. Dewitt of Ogden testified that he
knew defendant as a. customer at his
store in 1899; remembered the overcoat
defendant wore; it was of heavy ma
terial and dark color. Witness was
shown the OvercOat heretofore placed
in evidence, and positively said it was
not Haworth's.
To Mr.. Allison witness said that L.
u. Reavis, who was frequently with
HawOrth at his store, did not wear an
Overcoat.
The afternoon session was chiefly oc-
cUpied by the defense in examining
witnesses to prove that the overcoat
found by Detective Franks and put in
evidence in the case is not the coat
Nick HaWOrth commonly wore during
the fall and winter of 1898 in Ogden.
The witnesses examined on this point
were Alex Huss and James Bune.
blacksmiths doing business on Trad
ers' alley in Ogden; Alfred Child of
Riverdale, William Jensen, horse
trader, Ogden; George Huss, B. Bybee,
Sam Dalton, Lee Anderson, Thomas
Hull, all of whom testified that they
knew HawOrth, L. U. Reavis and
James Stevens in Ogden during the
fall of 1888 and the following winter
and spring: that they carefully OBJ
served defendants overcoat. which
they described as one made of heavy
faded black cloth. fastened across the
breast with cords. Each witness in
turn was shown the coat in evidence
and declared that he had never seen
it until it was exhibited as a clue af-
ter the murder. On oss-examination
Mr. Allison drew from some of the
witnesses that they had not carefully
noticed the Overcoats worn by Ha-
worth's companions. From the cross
examination of others it was shown