The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-03-19

the Lackawanpa Telephone company,
| was arrested yesterday on the charge
| or bribery. at the instance of the
Municipal league; was given a hearing
| before Alderman Fuller, and then dis
charged, Il. u. Sturges requesting the
| alderman to do so on account of lack
Of evidence.
The hearing was conducted in the
afternoon, and the first witness ex-
amined was w. =. Billings, assistant
cashier of the Second National bank,
of Wilkes-B Barre. The prosecution
sought to prove by Mr.. Billings that
a note Of the Lackaw wanna Telephone
companys for 100000, indorscd by it's
president, w. J. Lewis, had been dis
counted at the bank on February 8,
1900, and that the money had been paid
to Mr.. Weyland.
Mr.. Billings admitted the discount
Ing of the note. but could not tell to
whom the money was paid, though he
thought it was to Mr.. Weyland. 1t was
afterwards admitted by the prosecu-
tion that his testimony was of no ma
terality, because the money which 1t
is alleged was paid by Mr.. Weyland to
the commemorative principal witness,
ex-Common Councilman w. V. Grif-
fths. was paid five months before the
note was even drawn.
TREASURER SWORN.
The next witness examined was for
mer Mayor w. l.. Connell, the present
treasurer of the Lackawanna Telephone
company, No testimony of any inn
portance was elected from him.
President w. j. Lewis was the next
witness. He had no recollection what
ever Of such a note as the one mem
toned by Mr. Torrcy having been exc
cutod. He himself was out of the city
when the franchise ordinance was I'm
ally passed
Former Councilman w. V. Grinths
of the Fourth ward. was next called
and told substantially the same story
that he told at the hearing held March
= Sometime in the summer of 1899,
| he said. MI Weyland met him in the
Delaware ana Hudson station and gave
him an envelope containing $780, say
ing as he did so that ii was a present
for the good work which he (Grif-
hths) had done for the company in
supporting the ordinance granting a
franchise to the new company.
lie was cross examined at length
by Mr.. oBricn and admitted that
there was no arrangement with Mr..
Weyland before that he was to receive
any money; that he had always sup
, | ported the new company from the
a very first: that when the money was
, given him there was no direct or in
, direct implication that il was for the
, purpose Of purchasing his vote; that
the money had no influence whatever
! upon his vote In favor of the last or
, dnarce and the one finally passed.
and that when the money was given
, there was no franchise ordinance
= pending in the common branch of the
| councils.
, POSTPONEMENT ASKED.
When Mr.. Grifths testimony had
been completed. Mr. Torrey asked the
, attorneys on the other side if they
would agree To an indefinite post
ponement, on account Of the fact that
the league had been unable to secure
the presence Of most important Wit
ness. Mr.. Warren. in "a vigorous ten
Y minutes speech, protested against the
1 | pOStponement.
| 1t was an injustice, he said, to leave
= such a serious charge hanging over
$ the head of the defendant, who was a
= man of standing in the community
o. There had been altogether too much
. dill, -dallying IN these bribery cases
anyway, he said. and ii seemed to he
n the purpose of the league to first ar
- rest your man and then get your evil
= dence."
=, Mr.. Torrcy waived his demand for
/ \ postponemcnt, and asked that the
o prisoner be held for court on the
strength of the evidence already pre-
Il sented. The fact that the general
: manager of Il company seeking 4
n franchise had given a councilman 5000
t was more thaH enough to raise tht
presumption of criminal intent. n
L said. Men i'm Mr.. Weyland's position
- don't 80 around giving lump sums OF
4 500 to every Tom, Dick ana Harry
70 said he. merely as a matter of Sentl'
n mcut and hecause they feel CRATE.
Y full"
q Mr.. O'Blien made "a lengthy plea fol
= the defendant. There had been no evi,
: denCe whatever of bribery offered, hc
said Tho testimony of the common,
: wealths, only important witness. Mr.
n GrilIlths, in itself exploded entirely The
e. theory Of bribery. There was no un
Y derStandlnS when the money was Glver
II that it was for the purpose of innuenc
V ing Mr.. Grifiths vote.
MUST BE CORROBORATED.
He then pointed out that i'm such
case the act of assembly expressly
- sets forth that the evidence of IN,
- ac2omplicc to the alleged crime mus
u be COrroboraIed. Mr.. Grifliths was th'