The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-02-20
DOESN'T LIKE NEWSPAPER REPORTS OF THE HEARING
Judge MagnnS of Defense Complains of Papers and District
Attorney HaVerSOn Is of Same Mind and Cites Sheets
That Aren't Telling Facts as Brought Out

The case against Councilman Fred ".
Chambers occupied all day yesterday in
The district court. The session closed with
the accuser, J. D Skeen. under fire of
discrimination At the opening Of the
session the matter OF the newspaper re-
ports OF the proceedings was called up by
Attorney W. /. Magians for the defense,
who stated to the court that the papers
were not prOp6rly reporting the proceed
bngs and ne thought the court should in
Struct them on this point. The idea ad-
Vanced by Mr.. Maginnes found a ready
second on the part of the district attor-
ney, who stated that he would be glad TO
nave the court take such step and re-
1erred to articles that had been published
IN the GlaSmanR papers regarding the
case that was in no way favorable to
them The court asked that the gentle
men bring the Objectio labie articles into
court and ne would then consider the
matter. This request was complied with
ny the district attorney. who handed sew
erdl objectionable articles clipped from
fhe Standard-Examiner TO the court at
the opening Of the afternoon session Mr..
AaginnfS took the stand at that time
that he did not wish to see any one pun
1shed at all The newspaper men were
bis friends he said, and he did not bring
any of the articles referred to into court.
The court said that the matter could in
no way be brought in as a part Of the
Chambers case.
The most important part of yesterdays
Proceedings was found in the testimony
offered by Attorney J. D. Skeen, who is
the plaintiff in the present proceed ding.
Mr. Skeen was put on the stand after the
defense had put a number of witnesses
an TO testify TO the good character of the
defendant.
There were some sharp passages be
tween the opposing counsel during the
proceedings and in one instance there
were charges of one side trying to bring
politics into the case and the other side
charged that there was an attempt to
bring the church into the case Judge
J. A. Howell soon set his foot down on
this kind of controversy and stated that
the court was not in politics or religion
Judge J. Z. Bagley, city attorney of
Ogden, was placed on the stand by the
defense and was closely questioned as to
his advising COmcilmen regarding the
right 70 make the alleged illegal appropri-
atoms.
Skeen Voted for Chambers.
In rebuttaI J. D. skeen was called by
the prosecution and testified that he had
been acquainted with the defendant
Chambers for about four years. had assO-
ciated with him in the same ward, where
they both resided, he was OF the same po-
litiCal party and belonged to the same
church He stated that he had also as
sisted IN electtnE Chambers to the city
council from that ward. The witness
stated that Chambers called at his home
on the evening of Feb ? and had talked
with him regarding the case. On this case
the witpess said that Chambers stated
that he wGs the last 10 draw his warrant
for l91+ and that he only drew il after
the other C0uucilmen had tainted him
and charged him with having "cold feet"
Chambers insisted, SO Skcen stated, that
they were friends and that Sxeen could
not have any malice or feelings Of anger
toward him. Mr. Skeen stated that he
called the DEFENDANTS attention 70 the
resolution OF 1901 and pointed out that al
though the warrant was drawn on the
same, that it was not drawn Until August
1875. He said that he brought the action
because he had discovered what he
lhouGht We're irregularities in the action
taken by the council and he thought if
should be made public, therefore he called
upon the cOunclmen through the col
umns Of the paoerS to refund the money
and the men 10 resign.
Wouldn't Heed Warning.
This the councilmen disregarded and
they failed 10 refund the money He
then said that the Standard Examiner
had scoffed at him and made light Of the
request anC that lnasmuCh as Chambers
was connected with the papers referred
10. he must have seen the article. This
compelled him to act sooner on the mat
ter than perhaps he would have other
wise done He maintained that there was
absolutely no malice in bringing the ac-
tiOn, as he had none against any OF the
defendants. He stated that the reason
why he had brought the action against
ChamberS first was because he discov-
cred while inspecting the city's books
that Chambers had not served on the
board of equalization and review during
1905 He said further that he was closely
connected with Francis and Glasmann in
the publication OF the Standard Examiner,
and their utter contempt for him in the
articles published made it necessary that
he bring this action first, and that while
he had only brought three actions. that
there would be two others filed within a
short time
In response to a query why he did not
prosecute the other men who were mem
beers Of the council at that time, witness
stated that there was a statute that
gave the county attorney the right to
prosecute them for the misrepresentation
OF public funds. He had called the county
attorneys attention 10 this fact but that
officer stated that he did not care to
prosecute. Mr.. SlIeen stated that he did
net hire the district attorney to take
part in the proceedings. that Mr. Halver-
son said he did not Ike to proceed in
the case as he had personal feelings
against the defendant and others on the