The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-19
Statements Made by Government Wit
nesses Contradicted by Both the
Terre Haute and Rockville Man.
TESTIMONY OF INDIANIANS
JUDGES ANDERSON, JORDAN AND
PIETY IN BEHALF OF DEFENSE.
others Also Testified to the Previous
Good Reputation Borne by the
Defendants.

CINCINNATI, Nov 1s.-The government
to-day closed its evidence in the trial of
ID. V. Miller and ]. NJ. Johns. charged with
conspiracy to extort bride from John j.
Ryan, a turf commissioner. 1t is expected
the cases will go to the jury tomorrow.
Postoffice Inspector r. NJ. Fulton testi-
fed to his Investigations of the Ryan con-
Germ and reporting that its business was
not proper fer the mails Additional
ports of inspectors and kilograms between
the defendants and Ryan were offered at
the closing evidence.
Ira H. Royce of Terre Haute, who was
the first witness for the defense, testified
to Miller being attorney for his trust
company and other enterprises and his
good standing.
Charles D. Renick of Rockville, Ind,
clerk of the Circuit Court, testified to the
good reputation Of Johns and his service
as prosecutor. Renick testified to Miller
being nicknamed "Jim" by Johns. This
evidence was intended to explain the tele-
gram from Miller to Johns signed jim"
decision and that Ryan should be seen.
Joseph M. Johns. in his own defense.
went over the story of his dealing with
Rya9 and ss With sbe
secured from John ]. Ryan. none going
70 D. v. Miller.
Johns's direct examination occupied most
of the forenoon and his cross-examination
most Of the afternoon He contradicted
| John ]. Ryan, the principal witness of the
denied that he showed letter from Miller
signed Dan" when he made the contract
at the Fillbeck Hotel in Terre Haute with
Ryan for 81 500. He showed the contracts in
| Ryan's handwriting for $500 contingent on
| a favorable decision and for $1,000 for re-
vising Ryans literature so 1t would pass
- 10 nnA &c nj
| book to show what had become Of all the
| money and repeated that none went to
| Miller; that he had no understanding with
Miller, and that Ryan never heard him
say that the money was to be divided with
| Miller. Johns was on the stand four hours
under examination by Baker and cross
A large number of witnesses were intro
duced from Indiana to prove the previous
| them being Albert B. Anderson, United
| States district judge for Indiana; Judge
Jordan. of the Indiana Supreme, Court;
State Treasurer Nathaniel III. Hill, Judge
! s. Stimson, DR.. o. NJ Brown, James w.
Laundrum. Judge Aaron f. White, +. III:
banks at Rockville; Albert III. Adams, for
merly law partner of Johns; Joseph Nj.
| Ellert, Postmaster WINNER. Prosecutor
! Euby. Elias E. Owens. member OF the Leg
| islature John r. Johnson, Sheriff Ayede-
! lotte and Frank NJ. Johns.
| On cross-examination Judge James G..
/ P1ety, or 1erre teSllIleu tndt he anu
! others had gone to indianapolis since the
| former trial TO see Senators Fairbanks and
| Beveridge for a further continuance of the
present trial.
1 Francis c.. Rubener, a clerk In the Post
office Department at Washington, was ex-
/ amined at length by Rulison, for the de-
| tense, to show that the witness participated
| In the hearings and considerations of the
| rulings against Ryan and that Miller was
prosecuting Ryan rather than assisting him
| in the case represented by Johns. He tes-
| tilted about Barrett, the nephew of General
/ Tyner, practicing before the department,
| and that Miller did not approve of 1t.
During the examination Of Hubener an
| article. prepared by him and approved by
| Christiancy and others, that appeared in
| the Washington Star, was offered in evil
Sence. 1t referred to the Ryan and other
fraud cases that were being considered by
| the department.
| Miller was on the witness stand for over
| half an hour before court adjourned. de-
| such letter to Johns as the signed
| DAN" to which Ryan testified, telling
| Johns to see Ryan, etc. He denied that he
had authorized Johns to speak for him or
| that he had any other connection than
| that of friendly communication with Johns
| at any time. He said he never had any
| understanding with Johns. never received a
| cent of any of the fees of Johns. never
| expected any and had never been promised
| any He insisted that he had prosecuted
| the Ryan case the same as any other cases
| before the department.
Many witnesses are here from Indiana TO
| testify against the regulations of Miller
| and Johns in rebuttal. so that most of the
| time will be taken up tomorrow with testi-
| mony AS each side Is to have six hours
| for arguments, the case is not expected to
go to the jury until Friday night.