Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-11-14
SOME LEADING QUESTIONS.

Was 1t not within the power of the
defense asked Justice Bartch. ito
make clear what occurred at the house
that night? AIortensen and his wife
are the living witnesses TO what &C.
Cured"
Let me ask you another question:"
said Chief Justice Bartch wasn't II in
the power of the defense 10 show that
defendant had collected the money with
which to pay the note?'
MoRTENSENS EXCUSE.
"Morsenten claims" replied Mr..
Stewart that his books were not In
good condition and he could not have
shown that without bringing In a whole
lot of witnesses. Some of them were
not in the state and we Thought that
the state had not made its case and we
did not think II necessary TO bring IN
all OF those Witnesses
Mr.. Stewart then continued with n
statement Of the facts. In relation TO
the charge made by James Sharp mat
Mortensen murdered his son, the at
torney stated that Mortensen acted the
part Of an honest man when he re-
fused to deny the accusation of Mr..
Sharp. IAN honest man." he said,
would have paid no attention TO the
charge made under such circumstances.
If, after the body had been found and
Mr.. Sharp had again accused Norton
sen OF the crime, Mortensen had said.
you lie, l am innocent OF the crime"
they would have choked him, because
all those people knew Mr.. Sharp's feel
ings at that time. Again, was Mortcn-
sens conduct, In telephonlng to the
police and notifying them of the llnd-
ing of Hays body, that of a guilty
man? | contend that II was not"
ANOTHER QUERY.
At this point Justice Bartch asked
the attorney to explain Mortenscn's
statement that the shovel he gave Tor
gesen TO use In digging up Hays body
was the only shovel he had. when, ac-
cording to the testimony there waG a
long-handled shovel found In Mo.ten-
sens barn afterward which correspond
ed with the imprints Of the shovel used
In digging the grave.
HENRY MoRTENsEN EXPLAINS.
Mr. Stewart said that Henry Nor
Jensen, the brother of defendant, could
explain that matter II the board would
permit him to do so. Mr.. Mortensen
was given the floor and said:
"Mr. Coult had the long handled
shovel and had been using II In mixing
mortar. He washed II off and returned
II to the barn afterwards, that Is how
It came there Mr.. Coult Is in the city
now and win tell you the same thing"
When asked II the attorneys knew
of this fact at the time of the trial.
Mr.. Stewtlrt said that this is the first
ha I'd NJ
THE HAY CASE.
Atty. Stewart then read the history
OF the Hays murder case and showed
wherein the circumstances In that case
were much stronger than In this and
yet. he said. Hays was pardoned by the
board and practically exonerated of the
crime.
TN that case" continued Mr. Stew
art "the record shows that much of the
testimony for the defense was false.
Right here / want to say to the credit
of Peter Mortensen. that he, nor his
brother nor any of his friends have
ever suggested or even intimated that
the defense introduce testimony other
than that which was absolutely true
We have been accused of delay In
this case. Go out to the state prison
and you VIII find five condemned
prisoners. Peter Mortensen was the
last to be sentenced and win be the
first to be executed should the judg-
fent OF the court be carried out next
| Friday. | ask you, gentlemen OF the
board, to read the opinion OF the SUI
| preme court on the first appeal and on
the second appeal. Read the dissenting
| opinion Of Judge Marioneaux and con-
slider II carefully and then determine
whether or not Peter Mortensen has
' had fair trial."
PUBLIC PREJUDICE.
In speaking OF public prejudice in this
case, Mr. Stewart said that there had
been interview after interview In the
morning papers purported to be had
| with the defendant which were abso-
lutely false 10 his own knowledge. on
one occasion he said reporter called
| at the state prison to see Mortensen
and the latter refused to see him at all
| Notwithstanding that fact, he said the
reporter had whole column interview
In the paper with Mortensen, all OF
which was absolutely false, He mere
| ly related those matters, he said, to
show how great public prejudice Is In
this case.
| In c4pclusion ! wish to say that II
defendant Is granted Communication
| he may have an opportunity
IN year or two TO es-
tabllsh his innocence and clear
his name Of this crime. and prevent his
children who are now denied TO speak
his name, from being branded as the
children OF a murderer"
NONE WOULD SIGN
Mr., y. ]. Stewart stated that it was
the intention of the defense TO file q
petition for a rehearing Of the seconC
appeal and that II would be filed today
or Monday. He said that unless q com
mutation were granted he would no
have time 10 perfect such petition. III
said that he had circulated petition
for The communication OF the sentence o
Mortensen and that he could get NJ
signers. He also told the board OF hi
efforts TO induce Mr.. Young to maxi
affidavit as to the alleged misconduct o
the jury. All that he asked now wa
TO have Mr.. Young testify In regard L
that matter
YOUNG CALLED FOR.
Chief Justice Baskln and Justice
f3artch and McCarty favored citing Mr.
Young to appear before the board AM
give his testimony. A motion to tina
effect was put by Governor Wells, AM
was carried. Mr.. Young was notified