Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-11-02

| terylew with Justice I.ochfie was OBJ
| jected 10 by the defense and the OBJ
| lection sustained The evidence was
permitted to 20 In, however. subject to
| argument Of counsel Attorney Hop
| paugh made long argument In sup
| port OF his objection but the court de-
| cided TO consider the points raised later.
Mr.. Stfngfellow said he went back
| to Luchre's court on september goth,
and that the justice then produced .
complaint and summons which bore
| conflicting dates and had the appear
| ahce Of having been but recently made
! out.
HOPPAuGH CRlTIcIsEs.
Mr.. Hoppaugh then took the witness
| and subjected him 10 rigid ekainiIla-
| ton touching his qualifications as a
| lawyer, and did his best TO confuse
| him. Stringfellow said he attended coli
| lege and that he was permitted by
Judge Miner TO practice law. AT one
| stage Of the examination, witness used
| the word detained In place OF re
tained' and Mr. Hoppangh argued from
| this that the witness was not much OF
| a lawyer and knew precious little
about the case. Mr. Strlngfellow holly
replied that II he used the word de
| tained' Il was "slip of the tongue
| and not the result Of ignorance. Hop
paugh went all over the facts brought
| out In direct examination but was UNI
| able 10 weaken the witnesses testimony
In the least
He admitted he was interested In the
| case as q citizen, and said that he be-
lieyed Luke To be dishonest, and be-
| lleyed he forged Lochries name. He
| denied, however, having ever declared
| he was prosecuting the case, but said
that when he discovered the facts, he
| considered II his duty TO lay them be-
! fore the proper authorities.
Answering Mr. Hoppaugh, witness
! said II was true that the case OF Wood
VS. Palmer had been dismissed by jus
tice Lochrie. on his tStringfellows) mo-
| tion.
Hoppaugh then asked the witness II
he could define the difference between
suggested and recommended" and
also II he kEew the definition Of the
word "anlmus.' as those terms had
been used In reference to Witnesses In
| teryiews with the county authorities In
connection with the case Mt bar.
Stringfellow said he know. but counsel.
Hoppaugh laughinuly replied, IAN
right, II don't matter"
JUSTICE LocHRfE EXAMINED.
Justice Lochrie was called and his
testimony was listened to with great
/ interest by every person IN the court
room, and particularly by the defend
] ant, Francis G. Luke.
Mr. Ritter asked a few questions OF no
great import and then suddenly
| thrustlng a paper before the justice
asked him II he had ever seen II be-
fore.
Yes" said the witness
When aid YOU first see this sum-
mons?"
II was on the 9th Of September"
Had you seen II before that date?"
Not 10 my recollection, replied the
witness.
That's ALL said Attorney Ritter, and
sat down with very satisfied air.
Answering Nv Hoppaugh, Justice
Lochrie said he usually docketed his
cases as soon as filed. but that some
times he failed TO do this, especially
when he was very busy when he would
let them 90 for perhaps two or three
days
Calling witness attention TO two
dates on the summons, Sept. IL and
Sept. 2S,' Hoppaurh asked when he
first saw the summons lie REPLIED that
TO the best Of his recollection II was the
eth Of September,
Justice Lochrie was still under cross
examination when this report closed.