Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-23
ST. LOUIS ATTORNEY A WITNESS.
Mr.. Thomas T. Fauntleroy Testifes for
the Defense

When the trial was resumed this morn
ing continuation OF the cross-examination
OF the defendant Barrett was delayed suf-
ficiently to permit Mr. Thomas T. Faunte-
roy, an attorney-at-law OF st. Louis, Mo-,
to testify a witness for the defense.
Il remarked the other day that you were
related to Mai. Conrad" Attorney Worth
ington informed the witness.
Hardly but not that wouldn't be proud
to be-" Mr.. Faunteroy replied, thereby
causing the special counsel for the govern
ment to smile in pleased manner. 81 think
his sister married uncle of mine"
The witness told that he was instrumental
In having Mr.. Barrett employed as the
legal representative here of T.. j. Arnold &
Co, the turf investment concern of St
Louis. Mo-. by which the witness was also
employed in a legal capacity.
Mr.. Barrett was employed solely because
considered him an efficient, capab man
and an honest lawyer" Mr.. Fauntleroy de-
clared. I'VE wanted somebody who would
stop tuning the fiddle and accomplish some
thing"
After telling of the fee that was paid nv
Arnold * Co. to Mr.. Barrett. and of the
manner the payment was made. Mr.. Faun-
tletoy surrendered his place on the witness
stand TO Mr.. Barrett, the cross-examination
OF whom was then proceeded with by Mai
Conrad.
Mr.. Barrett Resumes.
The witness declared that he did not see
a report. which the government claims was
on file in the office of the assistant attorney
general for the Post Office Department
while Mr.. Barrett was there, made by In
spector Little, who recommended that
fraud order be issued against the Mutual
tldelty Company, for which Mr.. helms
was attorney. Inquiry was also made re-
garding the appearance on'H proof sheet of
the title page of the postal regulations re-
ylsed by Barrett. of statement to the eff
fect that the work had been perfortfied by
Harrison j. Barrett ''of the Baltimore bar
IL was explained that the words, iiof the
baltimore bar were cut out because one
OF the officials OF the Post Office Depart
ment thought II would be unfair TO other
members OF the bar to permit the words
mentioned TO appear on the title page of the
regulations.
In reply to an inquiry Mr.. Barrett stated
mat ne had prepared a proposed contract
for the Southern Mutual Investment. Com
pany. The attention OF the witness was
then directed to n statement made by him
20 inspector Fulton last August, in which
ne mad declared that he had nothing what
ever 10 do with the preparation. submission
or alleged tentative approval of a contra ct
for the Southern Mutual Company. Mai
Conrad asked the witness to reconcile the
two statements. and the reply was sub
stantlally that the two papers were con-
csrned. Maj. Conrad pressed the point at
length. but finally passed to another sub
1eet. evidently not satisfied with the ex-
PLANTATION given by Mr.. Barrett.
The Defense Rests.
The prosecution announcing the close OF
the cross examination. Attorney worthing-
ton went ahead with the redirect examina-
ton of the witness, with the view of clear
ing away. possible doubt that had been rails
ed by The questions asked by Major Conrad.
In very few minutes, however, counsel for
The defense announced:
We Test here"
Have you anything further to ofYer?'
Justice Pritchard wanted to know.