The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1902-02-18
THE HUMPHREY WHEAT CASE
Trial Proceeding. and Some I'm
pOrtant Testimony Is Developed.

The Humphrey trial occupied Mon
day afternoon and Tuesday in the cir
cult court. II has been a. important
topic Of conversation all over Western
Oregon.
The Jury Secured.
The jury was drawn from the regular
panel, composed of J. l.. Calvert, Frank
Smith, N. Mickle, NJ. A. Barber, p. d.
Kelly. j. b. Seeley, +. o. Mangold, J. l..
Steiwer, Alex Dawson, d. II. Looney,
o. r.. Thompson and S. w. Jones.
Only abou. six of those drawn
we're found TO be incompetent. The re-
mainder OF the jurors were excused from
the court room, as there are two cases OF
a similar nature yet to be tried against
Humphrey.
Testimony Was Taken.
Mr. Hall testified TO having deposited
his wheat with Humphrey and receiving
receipt therefore there being 204
bushels. He was afterwards notified Of
the failure Of the warehouse, and went
to Humphrey about the matter. lie
asked him TO either produce the wheat
or the money and was told there was
neither. After this answer he did not
formally demand the wheat. Hall at
tended the meeting OF the creditors and
heard Humphrey cay the shortage was
from'S 900 to 10000 bushels of wheat.
He denied ever having called at Hum
phrey's residence and asking for
him, saying that he wanted pay
for the wheat he had cold him.
He never had contract with
tho defendant TO sell him the
wheat at % cents per bushes,
lie was to store the graiu at
Pa cents per year. and II
he wanted TO sell would Ae
paid one cent more than was being paid
by others. lie gave Humphrey no
option on the wheat whatever ~ H.
Moore WAS also a depositor IA the
warehouse and attended the meeting OF
the creditors above mentioned. Al ihis
time Humphrey said he had been
running on shortage for three or four
years.
j. K. Gibson, one Of the storers, was
told by Humphrey that he was short in
wheat, so witness examined the ware
house at Salem and did not find a hand
iul Of wheat in all the bins.
G.. G.. swartz was employed at the
Humphrey warehouse by Humphrey, to
weigh grain and give receipts. lie
worked there until Mar 20, 1901 and at
that time no wheat was remaining
on storage. Il had been shipped to
San Franciscl and Portland aud to
the Turner mills aud Was partly sold as
chop and feed.
Gland Catch Investigated the ware,
house few weeks before it failed aud
found about thirty sacks Of grain.
As soon as the case was called the at.
toraeys Tor Humphrey presented mo-
tion 20 the court that It direct a verde
OF acquittal upon the following grounds
The crime charged has not been
proven. The testimony shows that de-
tendant was At the tunes when said |
wheat Was received by him a warehouse
man, and she wheat alleged 10 have been
Was stored in defendants
warehouse, and that II any conversion
took place It was in defendants ware
house and while he Was engaged in the
business.
The testimony shows that defendant
10 * said wheat ON store for an agreed
OF sis cents per bushel per
annum aad +. I. Hall, the prosecuting
witness, has not paid nor rendered the
storage due on said wheat.
No venue has bsen proven.
The argument OF the motion occupied
ao1ne time, aud was finally oyerruled.
Mrs. A NJ, Humphrey Was called 10
ihe stand, for the deteDse. She Was
asked il Mr. Hall did not call on her
md state that be wished TO zee her
husband about some wheat he had sold I,