The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-02-08


of the Scranton Railway company
charged with the corrupt solicitation
of Old Forge councilmen's votes The
case will likely be in the jury's hands
by o'clock this afternoon.
AS he intimated he would the night
before, Judge Wheaton refused the de-
fcndant's motion for binding instruc-
ton to the jury that it could not con-
Wet on the uncorroborated testimony
of u self-confessed accomplice. He,
however, granted u motion to strike
out the count of the indictment in
which it is alleged that Thomas Kill
coyne was bribed, the evidence OF p.
w. Gallagher being to the contrary.
The opening for the defense was
made by Major Warren. 1t was de-
clared by those of his auditors who
expressed themselves concerning it, to
be master effort as an opening in a
criminal case The theory of the de-
tense was set forth in a clear. logical
manner, which could not help but i'm
press itself on the jury in a way that
would make it stand before them vivid
ly and permanently. p. w. Gallagher,
the principal witness for the common
citation. His motive in testifying as he
dld would be shown to be backed by
Nindictiveness, Mr.. Warren declared.
FIRST WITNESS FOR DEFENSE.
Thomas Stevens, one of the three
counclmen accused of receiving a
share of the $500 which p. w. Gallagh-
er swore he used to buy the passage
of the ordinance, was the first witness
called for the defense.
His testimony was substantially the
only new matter of sensational ma
ture thus far injected. In response to
questions by Mr.. O'Brien. he swore
that he was approached by P. w. Gail
lagher and offered Il bribe to testify
against Mr. Silliman. He Indignantly
spurned the offer and reported the mat
ter to the counsel for the defense.
MI. Comegys cross-examned him at
length but his evidence was not shall-
Ell. An effort was made by the prosecu-
ton to show by the witness that Mr..
Gallagher, himself was q reluctant wit
ness, and therefore not likely to so to
such an>eXpense to secure testimony.
When the question was objected to,
Mi. Comegys reasoned with the court
that II Gallagher, himself, was not a
Wiling witness, it was not credible that
he would be so interested in the
prosecution as to lay himself liable to
penalizing, by attempting to buy evil
dence
"As Philadelphia lawyer would say.
that's non-sequitur,' " Judge Wheaton
lnterposed. ut may be that Il man
would be perfectly willing that some
one else should do something he. HIM
self, would not do"
MI. Stevens denied that =. w. CAL
lagher gave him $3.50 or any other
money or valuable thing to influence
his vote on the franchise ordinance or
for any. other purpose, save a $40 bill
Which he demanded as reimbursement
Tor time lost and money spent, while
serving as Il witness for the defendant
in the equity proceedings.
DID NOT KNOW.
Would YOU have taken money if it
had been offered you?" asked Mr.. Com
eggs on cross-eXamination.
Il do not know" promptly repeated
the witness.
Mr. Stevens declared further on cross
examination, that p. w. Gallagher
never even asked him to vote for the
ordinance. The only persons who So
licited him to vote for the measure, he
said We're the property holders of Old
Forge.
Patrick Gallagher, another of the
councilmen alleged to have been bribed.
was the next witness. He is 81 years of
age, n mine foreman and resident of
Old Forge for thirty-two years.
He denied emphatically that he ever
received cent from p. w. Gallagher
excepting $40 for witness fees and eX-
penses at the time the proceedings in
equity to annul the franchise We're
before n master He also maintained
that Gallagher never asked him to vote
for the ordinance.
On cross-eXamination he unhesitat-
ingly admitted he met =. w. Gallagher
at the company's offices in this city
one Sunday morning when the ordin-
ance was pending. Messrs. Stevens,
Munroe and kilcoyne We're also pres
ent. He remained only Il short time.
but While. he was there not Il word
was said about the passage of the or
dinance. Mr.. Stevens was there, the
witness said, as chairman of COM
mittee appointed by the councils to in
duce the company to build a retaining
wall at narrow part OF the road where
1t was proposed to run the track The
others We're members of this conf
mittee.
The witness could not recall the con-
yersation he had with p. w. Gallagher
but he was positive he was not asked
to vote for the ordinance When asked
what brought him there, the witness
replied that he went up to see what
was going on.
HANNAH FOLLOWED HIM
The witness provoked laugh by tell
ing that Mr.. Hannah followed them
and watched them go up in the COM
pany's office. He denied having met
Mr.. Sllliman in John II. Bonner's Of
fee.
At this juncture of the case the ques-
tion as TO whether or not the giving of
the pass books to the councilmen con-
stituted bribery was passed upon by
Judge Wheaton. II was positively de-
olared by the judge that he would not
permit of a conviction in this case on
The strength of the giving of pass
books, especially when the common
wealths own witness, who distributed
The passes, admitted that he told the
recipients the passes We're onl/a cour-
-esy customarily extended to all muni-
,ipal officials on the line of the COM
oany's roads, and not in any way in
ended to influence them to vote for the |
interests.
Mr.. Comeeys pointed out that there
S a constitutional provision making il
IN oifense for am officer such as a bor-
'ugh councilman to accept a pass.
Judge Wheaton remarked that he |
would let the appellate courts pass up
IN the matter of this constitutional |