The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1902-11-08
or number Of such newspaper or serial"
Their Evidence Disre oarded.

Their Evidence Disre oarded.
No attempt was made to meet the evil
dence Of Mr. Hennessy and Mr.. Scallon.
1t was apparent that the defense was
either afraid to put in a case, or was
confidently relying upon the action of the
county authorities, which came as a sur
prise to everybody but those Immediately
connected with the defense, and which
must have met the most sanguine antici-
pations of the guilty clique who were so
plentiful in promises of forthcoming sur.
prises after election.
When County Attorney Breen attempted
to prevent c. +. Kelley from appearing
as special counsel in the case, Mr.
Thresher, for the defendant, also OBJ
jected
Justice O'Connor, however, after a
statement made to him by Mr.. Kelley, al
lowed Mr.. kelley's appearance in the case.
County Attorney Breen, although in
terrogating most of the witnesses himself,
objected TO certain questions of Mr.. Kelley.
which were permitted by the court, and
which were intended to show the owner
ship of the Reveillc. Shs
Mr. Brccn also showed a peculiar in
disposition to make out case or bring
out the facts, and practically announced
once or twice to the court that he was
in charge of the matter and it did not
make any difference to him what the JUS
tice did. He stated that he had the right
to go into court and file a request for
leave not to file an information in the
case, even il the justice bound the defend
ant over.
Mr.. Brecn also announced, when Mr..
Kelley was allowed to appear in the case,
that he felt very much like walking out,
but thought it best that he should stay.
The first witness placed on the stand
was A. w. Brouse. Mr. Brouse stated
that he was publisher of the Reveille
that OFarrells position on the paper was
that of writing for the editorial depart
ment. He testified that he saw the article
upon which the complaint was based, but
did not know whether O'Farrell saw II
or not. O'Farrell was writing for the
Reveille at the time OF the publication of
the affidavit. O'Farrcll did not have CON
troll of everything, said the witness. The
witness did not know who had control
of the article that was published. The wilt
ness did not see it until the paper came
out.
On cross-examination by Mr.. Thresher
the witness admitted that he was publisher
and proprietor of the Reveillc and was
at the time the article was published In
the Reveillc He testified that as a gen.
eral rule O'Farrell's writings were pub
lished OH the fourth page of the paper.
Mr.. Kelley here asked leave to interro-
gate the witness, which request was
granted by the court The witness stated
that lie had been proprietor of the Reveille
on and off for four years. He said that
he practically owned the paper. In re-
] sponse to an objection by the defendant >
counsel, Mr.. Kelley stated that he desired
to show the court what Mr.. Brouse's po-
sition was, and under what management
the different men employed by the Reveills
were acting. The witness stated that he
would refuse to answer such question,
but that he owned large portion of the
Reveille, with great big judgment on
top of it.
Mr.. Kenney wanted to know who owned
the judgment
This question was objected to by MIR.
Thresher and Mr.. Brcen in chorus, and
Mr.. Kelley withdrew the question in defer
ence to Mr.. Breen's objection.
Brouse stated that he did not hire
O'Farrell, and did not know who did. He
did not know how he came to be en-
ployed on the Reveille. 1t was none of
his business how he became employed.
The Reveille took contributions from
anybody who could write.
Mr.. Kelly asked If it was not fact