Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-06-04

ness VI lif odilits
1 Judge Morse admonished Mr.. Stewart
| that such lengthy readings for the
purpose indicated were scarcely prop
err, but said that specific points might
very properly be pointed out for con-
| fiTnatlon or denial.
Mr.. stewart however, again asked:
This testimony is substantially cor
rect is it, Mr.. Romney?"
Mr.. Elchnor renewed his objection
and Judge Morse sustained It. The
testimony was thereafter segregated by
| Mr.. Stewart and the examination OF
| the witness went along smoothly again
The preliminary record was copiOusly
referred 10 and read from and I'm ref
erences TO some portions Mr. Romney
was unable TO remember that he had
testified either as the record indicated
or otherwise. Mr. Stewart desired
yes or mo" replies. however, the
questions and answers being about like
this,
did you testify to that, Mr. Rom
ney?"
~ can't recall that I did"
well, did you or did you not2'
II don't remember"
II want a direct answer. Did you
testify TO that"
INll I hiluNt 1 NtiIl ANlIAlHbNls I
may have given that testimony, but
don't remember t."
We'll answer yes or mo- did you
or did you not give this testimony"
We'll TO satisfy you | viii say yes. ]
could explain
Never mind the explanation"
Then the examination would pro-
coed until another and similar obstacle
was encountered and these haltings
were somewhat frequent from the fact
that the punching together OF a num-
Der OF the preliminary questions and
answers by Mr. Stewart was uninten-
tlonally made. In the majority of the
cases referred to Mr.. Romney very
readily confirmed his former testimony,
all Of which had reference 10 the prac-
tlce of the company with reference to
its manner Of giving evidence that ac-
counts and notes had been paid by
purchasers and makers.
Witness said he had no account In his
books Of notes that had been paid which
we're marked paid but that the books
showed the accounts
Mr.. Stewart then read from the wit
ness testimony al the preliminary hear
Ing In which he stated that such rec
ords We're made upon the books
Now, did you testify TO that?'
asked the attorney
II did not"
Counsel for defense then read many
questions Of very little importance and
Mr.. Romney admitted he 80 testified.
The court finally interrupted Mr..
Stewart to ask why he was reading the
record
"To show that some Of the statements
made by Mr. Romney are cOntradic-
tory TO what he has said here" replied
the attorney.
"Then you will confne yourself to
those portions said Judge Morse.
Witness said he testified at the hear
ing that he talked with Hay specifcal-
ly about cancelling the Mortensen note,
He also said he testified that he or Mr..
Hay would have to go down and cancel
the note. He said the reason was,
that It was the general custom. The
reason why Mr., Hay was so instructed,
despite the fact that Mr. Hay UNDER
stood that he was TO cancel the note,
that he knew It was his duty, was
that the matter had been discussed
between witness, Mortensen and Hay
After counsel concluded reading from
the record, Mr.. Eichnor moved that all
that had been read be stricken out.
The motion was denied
Witness testified that he kept an ac-
count OF all the notes that had been
paid to his company Witness then
produced the book containing the &C.
count, and counsel asked him to turn TO
the account Of Joseph Jensen back 10
the date OF 1896 He said. answering
Mr., Stewart, that the book contained
an account Of all his transactions with
the company did not secure
from Joseph Jensen on or about Aug
ust, 1896. promlssory note from Jo-
seph Jensen. The answer was that the
books showed there was a note given
then for $500. Mr. Stewart produced
the note and asked; is the note
paid ?"
"It is. II is marked so on the back"
"ls II marked so on the face?"
"It is not that I can see."
The object OF the attorney was to
show that all notes were not marked
paid" but in this instance the effort
failed dismally, for the note was
marked paid, when the interest was
paid and when amounts were paid on
account
Asked II the manner of marking this
particular note was the custom OF the
company, witness replied that the par
ticular note was not marked exactly as
he would have done It. In this case
the clerk who made the receipts on
the note had not followed witnesses
instructions to the letter as the clerk
thought he was doing right,
Witness said he never instructed HIS
clerks to mark notes paid on the face
OF them when only partial payments
were made, but when note was fully
paid. the instructions then were to
mark paid across the face Of the |
note. II this was not done then there J
was a breach OF Instructions. In the |
Jensen note, however. the note was |
endorsed on the hack. which was prac- |
tically the same thing
The Jensen note was offered In evil |
dence, and Mr. Eichnor was quick to |
say he had no objections whatever. and |
the note went in.
Witness was then compelled 10 20 |
back 10 the Tuesday Of the disappear |
ance Of Hay. and again 90 over all the |
details Of the trip to witness home, |
what was said going and coming. and |
what was said during lunch. Witness |
again went over the entire trip 10 For
est Dale. the visit 10 Mortensen's |
house and the conversations which |
took place there.
Mr. Stewart questioned Mr.. Romney |
very closely about the conversations |
at Mortensen's house on Tuesday, hut |
he was unable to bring out anything |
new. The answers were practically the |
same as given during direct examina-
ton by Mr.. Eichnor.
Counsel then referred again 10 the |
transcript Of witness testimony at tho |
preliminary hearing.
Mr. Romney testified that Morten- |
SEN on that occasion. said he kept |
the money In the cellar partly loose !
and partly In q sack. That Mortensen |