The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-11-24
JUL LSOCSo NJ dS lil6il taken
RObb Opens the Argument
BURTON LOSES GROUND.
Contentious of His Attorneys Over.
ruled BY Judge Van Devanter.

NOhlellAiOils OF His Attorneys Over
ruled BY Judge Van Devanter.
st. Louis, Nov. 24.-Judge Van Devan-
ter last evening Overruled all the points
raised by Senator Burton's attorneys.
The Judge also excluded evidence for
the defense that Mr.. Lehman attempted
to Introduce.
Judge Van Devanter in refusing the
evidence presented by the defense indi-
Gated that he did not purpose to permit
the issues involved in the trial to be
clouded or confused. Mr.. Lehman had
sought to present testimony through d
postOmice inspector tending to show the
motives which had prompted Thomas B.
Harlan, the company's attorney, in his
negotiations with Senator Burton. Judge
Van Devanter held that Mr. Harlan waS
not on trial and hat the witness at best
could not understand the case Of the
RialtO company in its entirety. while Mr.
harlan would know all about it, The
only issue involved in the trial was
whether Senator Burton for compensa-
ton had agreed to appear and did ap-
pear before the pOstOffice department in
a matter then pending
The attitude assumed by the court in
dicated to the lawyers who had filled the
court room that the Instructions to the
jury would exclusively limit its cOnsid-
erations to the occurrences between the
date Of Senator BurtOn's employment
by the RialtO company and the time
five months later When his services
were DISPENSED with.
Contract Made in Washington
The court excused the jury during the
argument over the legal question in
volved in the question of jurisdiction.
MI Lehman called attention to the Ian
guage of the Indictment which alleged
that an agreement had been entered into
in St. Louis He referred TO the CONVEX
sation between Harlan. attorney for the
T2falfr
all Of which had occurred on the train
between St. Louis and Chicago and
which was not began until the train was
In Illinois territory. Mr.. Harlan had eX
plained that the contract had not been
completed and it was thoroughly un-
derstood between them that the whole
matter must be referred to Mr. Dennis
the president of the company after the
negotia tons between Harlan and Bur
ton had been explained to him.
Mr.. Lehmanns contention was that
the agreement was not finished until
Senator Burton had signified on his re-
turn TO Washington his acceptance of
the terms as shown by his letters. Mr..
Lehman raised the point that the
offense consisted in the defendant hav-
ing agreed 10 receive compensation and
not in the Rialto company having
agreed to give it. therefore. he argued
the offense was committed in Washing
ton and not in St. Louis He cited as
parallel cases the act of q. person shoot
ing another a. oss the state line. The
offense. he said. would be committed
in the state where the shot took effect.
So it was if poison were sent through
the mails and administered through an
innocent person. The party sending the
poison would be considered to be CON
struetively ia the state where the poison
was taken Again. where a forged note
was sent to another state the offense
would be committed where the forged
note would be accepted. So it was tina t
the contract in the case of Senator Bur
ton was not executed until the senator