Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-09-11

u W.
state il he had had any transa ctions with
Mr.. King in connection with the street
paving contracts within the past four
years.
Mr. Carter objected TO the question.
claiming that it must refer to some spe-
cific case.
Mr.. Richardson argued the point He
held that any transa ction which would
lead up to or had any bearing on this
case was competent. as it would show
the relation to the case under considera-
ton. He cited the case of Guthrie VS. the
Commonwealth.
Mr.. Carter replied for the defence He
said the question was too broad The
question should be confined to one spe-
cific case. Otherwise. any number OF
cases would be combined and CONSOLE
dated into one case. The charge was that
Mr.. King had been accused of a particu-
lar offense within the past twelve months.
Mr.. Meredith said that the case was
that the three bidders had offered Mr.
King a certain gift within year past
Mr.. Richardson withdrew the question
for the present.
@. Were you bidder for the work
when the bids were opened by the street
committee on May IS, 1902.
A. I was, sir.
Q. Were there any otner bidders?
A. Yes. GUIDE and Weinbrunn.
@. Did You have any conversation with
Mr.. KING after the budget for. 1902 had
been passed?
Al did sir. The conversation took
place at Mr.. Kings Office in April. He
'phoned for me to come down and talk
to him.
Odd you go? If so, state what took
place.
Al went to the Office. Mr.. King told
me that $4,000 had been appropriated for
street work. He wanted 10 per cent. of
the amount for himself. I told him that
it could not be done. He told me to see
the other two-Messrs. GUIDE and Vein
brunn.
Later, made another Engagement, and
told him that we could not pay that
amount, as We could not raise prices
Mr. King finally reduced his demand to
200. After another conversation. he
came down to $500.
Q.--About what time was the offer to
accept the 1900 made?
Aust prior to the letting Of the con-
tract for the work in May.
Q.-Then the $1,000 was to be for the
total amount of work let under the bud
get of the present year?
A.-The three firms were to get all the
work.
Odd the contractors have any agree
ment?
Ave did have an agreement. did
not sec the bids. though I knew what
they were.
o.-was Mr.. King aware that you had
an agreement?
Al think he was. He told me to see
the other two-Gude and Weinhrunn.
Odd you bid wien bids were called
| for on June 8?
Al did.
Odd the bids differ materially from
the first bids? A:saaEsshi
A.-They did not
Odd Mr.. King offer to see that the
contracts were awarded you three at the
time that he said that he would accept
the $1,000?
Ale did, sir.
Q.-When you made your bids. did you
make any estimate of the amount yous
would have to pay Mr.. King? "
A. l did.
Q. Did you make any estimate of the
amount the others would have to pay for
the work?
A did, sir.
Q. Look at this paper. Captain and see
if those are your figures?
A They are my figures. It is the es-
innate made of what would have to be
paid Mr.. King.
G. What amounts were to have been
paid by each of the three contractors? :
a. Mr. Weinbrunn was to pay s74.S5,
Mr.. GUIDE 500. 40, and I would have to pay
s166.45.
G. Did you pay that amount to Mr..
King?
a. did not, sir.
G Do you owe that proportion, and
if SO to whom?
A do owe the money I owe it to
Mr.. GUIDE, who has conducted nego-
tiations after / declined to have any
thing to do with Ny. King.
@ Have you ever had previous trans
actions of similar character with Mr..
King? do not answer until the judge
directs you TOD
Mr.. Meredith Objects.
Mr.. Meredith and Mr.. Carter again
objected on the same 81 ound as stated
in the objection noted above. Mr.. Carter
was convinced that in q hearing Of
misdemeanor that no charge other than
that actually at issue could be brought
in. If SO, the court would never eni
case.
Mr. Richardson said that the decision
ing in this State The authorities were
simply for the guidance Of the courts
IN similar cases. It was competent to
bring in any evidence of the character
indicated by his question in the Throg-
den case. decided by the court Of ap-
pealS Ct Virginia.
The court held that nothing could be
introduced which had occG.~tos more than
a year agc-July q. 190l-twelve months
prior to the date of the Indictment.
G. State what else has occurred be-
tween Mr.. King and yourself within the
past year
A In Jan, 1902, paid Mr.. King 500
for work awarded under the old budget.
I got the money from Mr.. Weinbrunn-
G. Did Mr.. King say now he could
prevent the bids being awarded?
A Not exactly. He said he controlled
the situation.
Q. How was it cone?
A. Well, the bids would not be open
ed until we had come to terms.
(I,he court--Is this included IN the in.
dictmento
(Mr. Richardscn-No, sir; this is a new