Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-03-22
Attorneys For Burglar Intro
duce Motion to Bar Testi-
mony of George Burrier
PROPER NOTICE NOT SERVED
Motion, Which Was Great Surprise, Is
Based on Law Providing That Any
Witness Who is to Be Introduced
Against Defendant, Must Appear
as Witness Before Grand jury,
,pecial to Times-Republican

| Special to Times-Republican
Davenport, March 22.-'The case OF
| the state Of Iowa VS.. Michael Conroy
in the district court, offered it's first
surprise Yesterday morning when Lane
& Waterman, attorneys for the
defense, introduced motion 10
bar the testimony of Geo. B. Burrier,
| on the grounds that Burrier did not
appear as a witness before the grand
Jury and that proper notice that ne
was to be used as a witness was not
served on Conroy in the lndlctment
on which Conroy is being tried. Should
1 the motion be sustained it would prac-
tically mean that Conroy would be free
! on this one indictment, at least, as
| George Burrier is the witness whose
| evidence was the chief factor IN the
| conviction of Conroy at the last trlal.
The surprise came just as Burrler
was to go on the stand as a witness
for the state. The prisoner had been
brought over fro mthe Jail by the sher-
| if and had been placed in the witness
chair. when Messrs. Lane & Waterman
made an objection to his testimony be-
ing received. The grounds We're that
Conroy wos being tried on charge
for which an indictment was returned
against him at the November session OF
| the Clinton county grand jury in the
wear 1908. This indictment charged
Conroy with conspiracy and the at
torneys for the defense claimed that
when the matter came before the grand
Jury for investigation Burrier was not
brought before the jurors in person out
that written testimony. that ne nad
given, was introduced.
Other indictments had 'oeen returned
against Conroy in the September term
of the grand jury and Lane & water
man claim that the evidence Burner
gave at that time was introduced as
evidence in the investigation in NO
van,har and that the man himself was
not there.
Messrs. Lane & Waterman claimed
that this was a legal bar to the admits
lance of Burrier's testimony In the
trial. The attorneys for the state i'm
mediately asked the defense to prove
its assertion and a line of witnesses
was then introduced.
John H Edens, clerk of the Clinton
county court was sworn. In order TO
have made Burriers testimony good
an order from the court should have
been made. 1t was claimed that such
an order had been made by the judge
and it was produced In court. Clerk
John Edens, when introduced as a wit
ness, claimed that an order from the
court had not been made Of record in
Clinton county. If this should, be so
it is considered fatal defect.
L. H. Harrington Of Dewitt town
ship, who acted as foreman Of the
grand jury att the November term
when Conroy was indicted was next
introduced as witness and stated
that as far as he could remember Bur-
rier did not appear as a witness in the
case. w. j. O'Keefe. county attorney
for Clinton county when Conroy was
indicted was also introduced and stat
ed that as far as he could remember,
Burrier was not witness Mr.. O'Keefe
examined the records in the case and
these are alleged to show no indica-
tiOn that Burrier was, present and tes-
titled before the grand jury. In the
meantime the state was preparing its
defense, and Michael Conroy was cross
questioned as to whether he or his at
torneys had entered any objections to
Burrier's testifying at the last trial on
the grounds that Burrier had not been
a witness before the grand jury Mr..
Conroy replied that he could not state
positively in regard to the matter.
Flora B. Haddix, the court reporter
who took the last trial, was next in
troduced and asked ii any such OBJ
lection had been made, and she stated
that none had been made while she
was present in the court room.
In the meantime the original inict-
ment and the papers bearing the tes-
timony, ETC., had been introduced as
evidence in defense of the motion The
attorneys then announced that they
would argue the motion before it was
finally submitted.
The motion asking that Burrier's
testimony be thrown out is based on
the law which provides that if any
witness is to be introduced against the
defendant in the trial such witness
must appear as a witness before the
nd II,