Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-06-12
MORTENSEN WEPT
IN COURT TODAY.


1
60. =. ---.--..-.-------
val, whether he got any money during
that time or not He might have had
$4,000 or $4,000 during that time lie
had been a contractor Tor i've years and
had old contracts standing out In
this statement Mr.. Elchnor assumes
that defendant only received N.l04lO
W TO Dee. 10. 1901 Might he not have
received money that they knew nothing
about? That Is the Kind Of evidence
they ask you to convict Peter Morten-
sen upon.
LAuDfNG THE PRISONER.
The didn't put any OF the bankers on
the stand 60 show that he did not
| have any money on deposit Did Mr..
| EichnOr show that he did not receive
thousands Of dollars from OLD contracts
| during that time2 NO but he did show
that Peter Alottcnsen vas stripped Of
! every ceht, and that he gave the last
! cent to his brOthera-in-law to give to
| ills wife. and little ones ana left him
| self stripped OF everything the same
as he was when he came into this
| world
They say he only received $4l04 10.
but ! challenge them to show that he
did not receive more. Mr., Echnor may
say why didn't he so on the stand
| Peter Mortensen is not here TO prove
| his innocence The state must prove
that he did not have the money and II
they fail their case must fall. Peter
Mortensen does not have TO prove his
innocence. but the state must prove
him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did the state show to you where
that Sl,70O went to that was paid out
by checks? Peter Mortensen might
have paid that to himself; they have
to prove that he did not draw those
checks In favor Of himself and they
have not done it, There Ii Sl,iO0 not
accounted for.
Gentlemen when you are figuring 500
away, you Will figure pretty careful,
he Is trying to figure mans life away,
shouldn't you be unusually careful?
Take for granted everything he said
here and / submit that he
has not shown that Peter Nor
tensen did not have the
money. Is that the kind Of testimony
you are going to convict this man up
en-? ! hope not You gentlemen can zee
for yourselves that they have not prov
en- by these figures that he did not have
the money. | submit that they have
fallen down in proving the counts In the
complaint.
SPEAKS OF HONESTY.
II Mr. Mortensen had been dishonest
he could have gone into bankruptcy for
$16 and beaten the Pacific Lumber COM
pany and everybody else out Of their
money. Mr. Eichnor puts these wit
nesses on the stand and says that be.
cause they said that was all the money
he received, that II Is conclusive, and
he then shows that this defendant paid
out certain amounts and then arrives
at the conclusion that he did not have
the money.
You are not to consider $3.50, but a hu-
man life. SO much for the accounts, |
and / challenge the prosecution to go |
behind It. You remember the testimony |
Of Morton when he said he called Nor |
tensen's attention to an article that APP |
peared in the News" Mortensen said |
1t was wrong. The first thought that
comes to man In that position Is that |
the newspapers are wrong.
Let us now go back to what they con-
slider their climax. To the street car
man. Who Is he? A street car man,
and he comes In here and tells you that,
he has not seen Peter Morten-
sen 10 his knowledge for two years,
don't know whether he saw him, he
comes In here and tells you, gentlemen
Of the jury, that he saw Peter Nor
Jensen cross the track with shovel
on his shoulder. On cross-examination
he said he didn't see the shovel when
The man crossed the track. He saw
Peter Mortensen walk down the track
70 or 20 feet and when the car clicked
IN the railroad crossing, he turned
round He was In the light looking In
o the darkness when the moon was
rot at its quarter. Would you pick
)ut man in this room with his hat
IN In the day time II you had not
Ieem him for two years, and would you
IDENTIFY him when a life was at stake?
Neverl wouldn't. Why, you can hear
hat car two blocks away. 10 you think
man who has committed such a crime
8 going TO parade in front Of a car
With o shovel on his shoulder" Suit
ng action to the words. Mr.. stewart
seized the shovel and marched before
he jury.
III man wanted to fasten suspicion
|
who killed James r. HayY They
have failed TO prove that Peter Nor
ensen left the place that night" Coun-
gel then referred to the testimony OF
Hill and Fesler and called attention 10
low they impeached Allen.
THEORY OF DEFENSE.
Now let's go back and find out who
the deed. You have the evil
Ience before you. The theory we viii
PRESENT Is the simple theory we get
rom the evidence Of the prosecution,
Mr. stewart then argued that when
he matter was being talked over IN The
flee of the Pacific Lumber co.nparig
omeone might have heard the ccnyar.
alton and followed Mortensen and Hay
MT to Forest Dale. They may have
cen Mortensen go TO the eellar ana
.et the money They may have seen
lay come out with II and start for
ome. They may have showed a enn
. his face and compelled him 10 90
own the track and there murdered
i'm. They didn't take the watch for the
eason that had II been found on them
hey would have been caught In {
rap. Might somebody not have fol-
owed them 10 Forest Dale determined !
. TOD refer M0rtensen?'
Hay may have been buried 10 throw
lsplcion upon Peter Mortensen. In I
onclusion Mr.. Stewart said he belley.
Z the jury would do their duty and {
I've justice to the defendant.
Il have gone over this mans life"
c said, day and night to see II | could 3
nd anything that would indicate thar Z
e ~ man who is so base, so vile, SO g
human and low as to commit such y
astardly and hendlsh crime. but .
ave found" y
! object to Mr.. Stewart testlfyins Il
the court please" objected Mr.. Eloh-
or. II Mr.. Stewart was sworn TO tes- 4,
~, DO not remember IT," =
Il remember" began Mr. Stewart !,
az the court ordered him 10 condne !,
IS remarks to tfs evidence in the case "
no not 90 outside OF H. MIR. Stewart :,
rought his argument to q close with !,
le declaration that he felt assured thai :,
10 jury would give the defendan, ,,s J,