The Washington times., 1904-05-04

TRIAL TAKES ON
TECHNICAL CAST
Few in Attendance, and
the Proceedings Very
ProSy.
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED
Richard Webster Continues
His Testimony at To-
days Session.
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED

Lack of popular interest in the Tyner-
Barrett postofIca case was manifested
this morning when there were not at any
one time more than a dozen spectators
in the courtroom. During the Machen
! trial. which WIS concluded a few weeks
ago, the court was continually crowded
many being unable to get seats.
Richard NJ. Webster, who succeeded
Barrett as assistant to the Assistant At
torney General iol the POstoffice De-
partment. contir ued his testimony this
morning. 1t was largely in the nature
/ Of Identification cf documents. In an
swer to a question by the prosecution,
which was objected to by the defense,
but overruled after considerable argu-
ment, he said that his testimony was
the same as that which he gave before
/ the grand jury.
! Webster was followed by Chief Post
| Office Inspector Cochran, and Haines
Morgan, of the Assistant Attorney Gen
erals office. Todays proceedings Were
| of a technical character. and devoid of
incident.
Clerk Webster Recalled.
RichayI NJ. Webster, law clerk in
resumed the stand when the count was
oTened at 10 o'clock this morning. He
identified, at Mr.. Taggart's request. sew
eral letter files of the department.
Mr. Worthington then took up the
! cross-examination.
| Witness said ne entered Tyner's Of
flee in October, 1888, as a clerk. He
1 mentioned the names of two clerks who
had been engaged there at that time.
Later another clerk was assigned there.
50 that the office force consisted OF Cen
eral Tyner, Mr.. Barrett, three clerks,
and a cOlored messenger.
| The control Of fraud order caseS was
taken up. The cases came from tnS
Fourth Assistant Post master Generaia
/ cffice TO Mr. Huebner, me of the clerks.
anG If the case seemed TO demand ac-
ton, recommendation was made to
that effect
Lawyers in Contention.
When Mr.. Worthington asked witness
what ne had testified TO before the
grand jury. Mr.. Taggart objected.
For what purpose do you ask the
question: asked Judge Pritchard.
Mr. Worthington, addressing the court.
contended that the secrecy Of the grand
jury room did not protect the witness
from testifying in open court on the
same points. Counsel held that witness
might testify 10 one thing before the
grand jury and to something else later
on in open court. and that he could
mot be excused from answering on cross
| examination. Mr.. WOrthingtOn con-
tention was that the Indictment was
found not IN accordance with the evi-
dence but in spite Of the evidence.
/ The attorneys discussed the question
for ten minutes Wien Judge Pritchard
! ruled that he would permit the question
10 be asked for the purpose OF i'm
peaching the witness, and for that pur-
pose OnlV.
Question of Signature.
Mr.. Worthington question was re-
! peated as to whether or not witness had
not stated before the grand jury that
; ii was the invariable rule that when
fraud order was being violated, a
recommendation was made to the head
of the office for action.
Witness replied he had endeavOred to
do So"
: Counsel took up the subject Of memo
randa on the subject of fraud orders and
der In use as shown by a case dated June
l9. 1901. I'm the Jersey City postoffice.
Mr.. Worthington wished 20 learn
whether all fraud orders were Of one
, form.
Witness said the order when executed
came back to the department for filing,
so that If any other style Of fraud order
had been In use II ought 10 be on file
In the department
l Big Job for Witness.
! Mr.. Worthington thereupon requested
! the witness to supply him with record
! Of all the cases in the department in
! ! which fraud orders had been prepared in
the time he had been in the Office with
! Barrett
; The witness quaiIed bit at this sug-
gestion and said he didn't believe Mr.
Worthington knew what job that
would be
Mr.. Worthington said ne did know ana
suggested that the witness might attend
to il in the recess of the court.
Witness said in answer to questions
that he knew of the procedure in fraud
: order cases, but knew little about any
} bend investment schemes.
Question of Signature.
Mr. Worthington at this point intro
duced I'm evidence a document which he
T. showed the witness and asked whose
handwriting the document bore.
p Witness said he thought it was that
Of Huebner. He could not tell when the
document had gone into the files, or
whether IL had been there only a week
prhaps. as Mr.. Worthington suggested
II it was there. it was where IL ought
. 10 have been. the witness added.
: Mr.. Worthington then took up the re-
. port Of Judge Tyner, as Assistant Attor-
= ney General for the Postoffice Depart
5 ment, for the year ended June 80 1902
e Mr.. Taggart at previous time in the
/. trial had read half OF one paragraph
n / specified, and Mr.. Worthington said he
=. ! would read the rest Of It," IL related
4 To the number of fraud orders issued OF
e which nine had been revoked because
their object had been attained.
e Witness said he could not throw any
n Continued on Ninth Page)
q
s