The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1904-10-08

swcr was put in. At the hour TIN
case is called-not at the opening
OF the tcrm-this motion is made
There had been no difficulty il
procuring the attendance Of Jen
ME Stewart. Why do not the,
call Paul Charlebo..s, who is il
town, and ask Of him as to
the fact which it is alleged tho
witness Stewart and Meigs Will ties.
tify to? The affiant does not show
any diligence whatever in procur-
ing the attendance Of Miss Stew.
art. 1t states that he did not find
out till this day where she was tc
be found, and yet at any time for a
long while past, a great many peo-
pie in Washburn could have given
her address. MIR. Newton claimed
that the affidavit only offered to
prove in the future, secondary facts.
Mr.. McCulloch said that the de-
PENDANT published in his paper
some time ago, all the facts that
he would prove for his defense.
Miss Stewart and her parents
moved last winter and spring to
Oregon, and everybody knew they
had gone. II diligence had been
used by the defendant he could
have had his witness here. In
August last the defendant pub
lished n two column article setting
forth in full what he proposed to
set up in his defense. If he knew
what his defense would be, surely
he know who his witnesses would
be. If Harris had applied to the
states attorney he would have Civ
en- the defendant the address of
Miss Stewart. There is no telling
when there will be another term of
court in Washburn. It may be a
year. Here is a child that should
be provided for by the defendant,
if the court decides that he is it's
father.
At this stage Of the case Mr..
johnson objected to Mr.. Newton
acting as assistant in prosecuting
the case. The motion was over
ruled.
Mr.. johnson replied, and said
that he was surprised at denials of
Hanson and Charlebois, and Jen-
nie Stewart was the best witness
they could get.
Judge Winchester said the aft
davit was insufficient in that while
it was stated that due diligence
had been used to procure this wit
ness, there was IL failure to state
what the due diligence consisted of.
Mr.. johnson asked for further
time in which to write a SUPPLEMENT
tary affidavit, and the request was
grained. The supplementary aft
davit was filed and it set forth the
efforts that Harris had put forth to
find Miss Stewart. Mr.. johnson
said, however. that he would like
still further time in which to COM
plete his afidavits. The time was
granted. Court adjourned till 7:3O
p. m.
A further supplementary affidavit
was filed by Mr.. johnson when
court convened at 1870 p. nj.
Mr.. McCulloch called attention to
this extraordinary state of facts:
Miss Stewart, according to the de-
PENDANTS affidavit, has been out of
the state since January 1904, and
the defendant has had no commu-
nication with her since that date.
This case was begun in August last.
Such being the fact, how can the
defendant swear that Miss Stewart
would testify to confessions of
Miss Anderson when he has not
talked to her about the matter. or
had any communication with her?
Mr.. Newton said that if the affi-
davits of the defendant were true,
then three months after the oHense
was committed, he had talked with
Miss Stewart about the Anderson
y