Arizona republican., 1904-10-20

- T . ferred to the sending of the money S1.O52.5O and the disposition which | should be made of it. The witness said that when he was unable to hear | from the attorneys directly though he had learned from the National Bank of Arizona that they were retaining the money as a fee after having paid cer- tain expenses of his brother, he came to Phoenix and called on them. Two days later they rendered him a state ment showing that they had received the following sums in connection with the case: Cash from R. L. McDon- mold at various times, SSS, S65.68 and $S3.O3: cash from H. w. McDonnold. $1,O525O; total, s1,2S9.21. The state ment showed the following items to the credit of the attorneys: a general retainer fee, $s50 services in the F'ickas case, '$210; expenses to Pres colt, $25; services at Prescott, $75; typevriting, $10; warrant to Dr. Mar1 tin, S135; Richardson on note, e59; additional expenses, $1O1.45; a, total of S956.45. This left a balance of S332.76 which was subsequently returned -o the complainant.
 MT. McDonnold said that he had never employed the attorneys and that there was nothing in the corre- spondencc on that subject; nothing which could be construed as authoriza- ton for them to keep any part of the money as a fee.
 McDonnold was subjected to a rigid cross examination by Walter Bennett in the cOurse of which it was develop ed that the amount paid pr. Martin was not a part of the money which had been sent from Tennessee. It was also brought out that the money which had been paid back to the wat ness had been paid to Street & Alex ander as a fee for the defense of R. L. McDonnold.
 J J. Sweeney, cashier of the National Bank of Arizona next testified to the receipt of Q letter from H. w. Me DonHold instrUcting the bank to make demand upon Woodward & Thomas for the money which he had sent tn m. MT. Sweeney said that such a demand had been made but the attorneys had not compiled with it.
 The last witness of the day vas R. L. McDonnold. He said that when he was brought back from San Diego he employed Messrs. Woodward and Thomas to defend him. He had pre- vIously written his brother asking for help. He said that he had no definite
 
 attorneys regarding their fee MT. Thomas frequently assured him that that would be all right and finally when the witness insisted that Mfr Thomas told him that it would not exceed $206. He said that altogether he had paid his attorneys about S250. He said that regarding the money that was sent to pay his debts, he nev- CT told his attorneys how much his debts amounted to. They had ascer- tained in some way that the sum was S1,052.5O ana that was the amount they had named to his brother. He sad that he had never had control of the money; he had no property interest in 1t and had never told his attorneys that they might keep any part of f. as a fee.
 On cross examination MT. Bennett asked the witness where he was re- siding. He replied promptly that he was stopping at the county jail. He was then asked # he was not under sentence for forgery. He replied that he was He was then asked if he had l not confessed to the crime. District Attorney Baker objected to the ques- ton on the ground that that was far ther than the examination could go 1 1t was enough to bring out that the witness had been convicted and sen | tenced. The attorneys for the de- | fense said that a confessed forger was worse than one who had merely been found guilty on trial and said that this | question was a part of their attack upon the credibility of the witness. | The objection was sustained.
 In reply to questions as to orders | that the witness had given his at toTneys for the payment of money, he said that there was one for the pay l merst of $135 for pr. AEci Martin. l When he was asked what that was for | he declined to answer on the ground | thaJ the answer would be incriminaI- | ing. It was understood though that 1t 1 was to make up for another order for | that amount which he had given the ! doctor for a warrant for a period al- l ready covered. There was another ! order for $1o0 in favor of pr. Martin | and one for the same amount in favor l of Judge Mccormick It was the pur- l pose of the defense to show that these l and other sums paid out for the wit i ness had absorbed the money which he had said he had paid to them as a fee. The witness said. however. that the last two orders mentioned had l not been paid.
 | A lltle sensation was sprung in tho 1 course of this part of the examination
 There was offered an order with the l WHtness's name attached, made pav- able to his attorneys. He denied that | 1t was his signature and he explained
 that he had previously signed an or
 der of the same kind This one h,
 said was a forgery. It was careful,
 examined by the attorneys for bott
 sides and it was agreed that the sig
 nature did not resemble that of Nc DOnnold.
 There was another question whicF
 remains unanswered. Regarding tn,
 settlement of his debts it was brough
 out that some of the merchants te
 whom the witness had become indebt.
 ed had consented to take the good, l back which they had sold him. On,
 merchant it was testified had takeI
 such goods hack to the extent of s9a
 The witness was asked what kind O
 goods. He declined to reply and ar