Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-12-26

was good, be had never heard it cues
toned. He told Mr.. Bird he had neyel
heard IL discussed.
Levi Murray of Mill Creek hundred
also gave Whiteman a good reputation
On cross examination, he said he hac
heard Mr. Whitema.;'s reputation dis
GUESSED and 1t was good.
Mr. Bird wanted to know why, il 4
man was truthful man, his reputation
was discussed.
The witness said several persons wer,
talking about it.
William M. Eastburn OF Mill Cree
hundred, who had known Whitemar
many years, gave him a good reputation
Tor truth and yerAoity. he never hearc
his reputation discussed.
William T. Peach OF Mill Greek hun
dred, who mines and manufacture,
china clay, gave Whiteman gooc
reputation and said he had never hearc
it que stoned.
James Hardness of Nall Creek hun
dred, who 10 carpenter, has knowr
Whiteman all his life and said his
reputation was good.
do you know Tweed's Bridge?'i
81 do. -
"Do you remember whether or not il
was repaired last year,
II remember it was. -
when was it completed?n
Defence objected. "You rut that in,
Mr.. Bird, A." said Judge Gruhh.
Mr.. Bird claimei that the State had
put In evidsnce conc rnlng work on the
bridge, and could not put in more on
the subject.
I'VE haze testimony that fully ex
plains the transaction, = said Mr., Ward
in addressing the court. lie made the
point that the matter brought nut by
the defence could not be known TO the
State, until 1t was put in by the de
fence, aud thetefore that ii was proper
for the State to reply. The State pro
posed to show that all the work on the
bridge was done before August 18th,
1900, and therefore to impeaoh the testi
mony of the defence s witnesses who
spoke of doing work in September.
A majority OF the court ruled in the
question, the Chief Justice saying the
defence had put in the details az to
me and work on the bridge. and the
State wss not bound to anticipate the
defence. The State had a right to
renly, SO that the Jury should have
both sides, Judge Spruance held that
the question was not in reply and dis.
sented, The question was repeated.
The repairs were complete on the
9th Gay OF August -
How do you know that2"
went over the bridge"
FLOW do you fix tho dste2'
I'VE built a barn for Miss Tweed,
and began it on the 9Th. ~
BY Mr.. Bird:
Gould no labor have been perform ed
on that bridge after that and you not
see it?'
No, sir, not 10 August and Septem
Der, for | was working on the barn and
could have seen il. ~
Lawrence M. Whiteman came to the
stand.
: ask you when he work on Tweed q
bridge was completed, "sa d Mr.. Ward.
The question vas ruled in by a ma.
iority OF the court.
1T was completed the first week in
August. -
. would ask you to look at this
warrant handing a warranty and All,
you II It was received by you in pay
AANhp Va 'dok WOth
Objected to by the defence.
YES, sir ~
The warrant for $3.50. 25 was admitted
in evidence.
" Did you do any work on Tweed e
bridge subsel uent to the date of thai
warrnnt?n
II did not. -
What was the character of the work
you did on Tweed's bridge:"
Exception noted to admit ng cues
tion. WA.
We put in all new girders, a new
floor, new stringers, scraped and liainted
the bridge and fixed the apEi caches. -
How many days were you en-
ployed?"
II cannot tell you of my own
knowledge"
Can you give your best recollection
us to the number of daysY"
| can't give you the number oil
your"
-Four"
Did you ever, after the receiving Of
this warrant for Sl59.25, make any de
mand on john Lynn for s5s. 5O?''
- did not :"
Objected to and ruled out az having
already been answered.
Who worked for your
atwood johnson, George Chalmers,
Franklin Sanders and David W. Shep.
parG, d"
How did you pay them"
Question objected to as immaterial
and rund mt
No quest ons were asked on cross.
examination.
The stat, rests" said Mr.. Ward,
about 1870.
Both sides rest" added Mr.. Hayes.
EVIDENCE ALI. IN--PRAYERs SUBMITTED
Then witnesses in the case were dis.
cha ged, and witnesses d other ca uaes
were told to come back, January 18th,
the day fixed for starting the next false
pretenoe trial.
Both sides submitted ra, ers to the
court,
Tne prayers for the State are:
!. ANY false act, word, symbol or taken
calculated to deceive another and knowing ii,
and designedly employed by any nersny
with intent to deftaud another out of none,
or other personal property, and By means III
which such person obtains from another any
money or other personal property witt
intent to defraud any person out of The
same is false pretence in the menninQ OF ihf
statute in that behalf; and any person usine
such act, word. symbol or token with the
intent and result Aforesaid Is guilty of ob.
tanning such money or other personal pron.
ery by false prett noes
?. The false representations sufficient tc
sustain charge OF Obtaining money by
false pre.euce. need not necessarily be words
spoken Or written expressly setting forth In
terms the mise pretence. II the Jury be
lieses from the evidence that John Iyur
presented TO the comptroller of New Castle
county bill purrorting to have heer
rendered by Lawrence NJ. Whiteinan to The