Omaha daily bee., 1906-01-28
START ON THE BURNS CASE
One Witness Examined 10 Enable Him t
Return to His Home in Colorado.
TELLS OF HIS TALKS WITH HERSHEY
In Substance the Testimony was the
same as Contained in Amdnvit
Already on FILE In the
Case.


Case.
Judge Thornell in the district court
yesterday afternoon stopped the trial of
the Dorm & McGinnity-Cooper libel suit
sufficiently long 10 take the testimony of
Philip ]. Lonergan of Denver, one of the
witnesses for James Doyle against Jacob
Hershey, charged by Doyle with attempt
ing to tamper with the jury before which
was tried last year his suit against James
F. Burns, former president of the Portland
Gold Mining company 1t was stated that
Mr.. Lonergan. who arrived from Denver
yesterday morning, was anxious to return
there last night, so Judge Thornel con-
scented to having his testimony taken.
The hearing will be resumed Monday.
Doyle. accompanied by MIR. Lonergan,
George Marshland and John Kilday, wit
nesses for him, arrived here yesterday
morning did former Governor c. s.
Thomas of Denver counsel for James +.
Burns. MIR. Thomas returned to Colorado
last evening but will be back here Mon
day. when the hearing is resumed. Hershey
is represented in court by Attorneys l. N.
Flickinger and Charles NJ. Harl.
The testimony of witness Lonergan was
ments made in his affidavit which was
presented to the court last Wednesday
when Doyle filed his charge against
Hershey. The direct examination of the
witness was brief. not occupying more
than twenty minutes. but his cross-exam-
nation, which was conducted by Attorney
Harl. was very rigid and occupied over
two hours.
Tells of Interviews.
The testimony of the witness was prin-
cipally in relation to the two interviews
which he claimed to have had with Hershey
In Colorado Springs about six weeks ago
The first interview was between himself
and Hershey alone but at the second
meeting Doyle was present. At these in
terviews Lonergan testified. Hershey ad-
mitted receiving SlOO from Burns agents
and declared that although he had pre-
viously taken a deep interest in the suit
for Burns he thought Doyle ought to have
new trial and complained that Burns
had not treated him just right. 1t was
at the first interview, so the witness
| testified. that Hershey procured a letter,
one paragraph of which he showed to
Lonergan, but kept the letter so folded
that the witness was unable to read the
signature heading. The paTagra phi
SHOWN nlIn tne witness teStlneu, read:
As you well know Burns small plea
yunish way OF treating everybody down
here hurts, and you know l am sitting
on the lid holding down and back the evil
dence that would give the plaintiff. Doyle,
a new trial
This letter Lonergan testified he sought
| to induce Hershey to surrender to Doyle
and that at first Hershey consented to do
| so. but later stated he did not think he
ought to until he had consulted his law
yer friend in Council Bluffs. At the
| second interview, at which Doyle was said
| to be present, the witness testified that
| Hershey repeated the statements made to
| him at the first meeting These state
ments. the witness said, also referred
| to two Jurors who boarded near the Neu-
! mayer hotel and one who boarded there
part of the time of the trial. II was
| these three Jurors whom Hershey so the
| witness stated, claimed had been given
copies of the lien flied by Wright & Bald
win on the first Judgment obtained by
| Doyle.
| CrOss-Exs mi nations.
| Lonergan. on cross-examination was
asked by counsel for Hershey If the notes
OF his conversation with Hershey, which
| the witness claimed he made a few hours
after the interview and subsequently tran.
| scribed by a stenographer, were not die
tated by lawyer and committed to memory
by the witness. Lonergan replied with con
| siderable emphasis that the notes were &
| typewriter copy of his pencil notes of hi,
| interview and had in no manner, shape OF
form been dictated by any lawyer
The witness admitted he was a persona
friend of Doyle and that he had been inter
ested in helping him secure new trial. bu
denied having any financial interest in tn,
outcome of the suit against Burns. Durin.
his cross-examination It was brought on
that Hershey. on being importuned to max,
an affidavit on behalf OF Doyle had state,
that he could hardly see his way clear I,
90 so In view OF the fact that he had re
ceived 800 of Burns money and that Lon
ergan had suggested to him that he couI,
make II an easy matter for him to pay bacl
the money TO Barns. Also that Hershey ha,
stated that he had a mining lease which h
did not want to leave and that I.onerval
had made him an offer to purchase it, TIL
witness declared that his desire 10 pur
chase the mining lease was genuine. as h
considered IL a good investment, and denie
that the offer was made In any manner Z
induce Hershey TO make the afidavits aske
Of him.
Some amusement was caused when couu
sci asked the witness II II was not strang
that complete stranger as Hershey was a
the time to him should have unbosome
himself in the manner he was said TO hay
done and the witness replied why h
I fairly took my breath away with his state
ments."
! At the conclusion of Lonergan's testimon
the further hearing was continued to Nor
day, Counsel for the prosecution informe
the court that 1t would offer four more wi
4 nesses and the defense indicated that
E would Introduce at least fifteen. This bein
the case. it is likely the hearing will la,
several days.
{ The case against Hershey I'm Justice Ga
diners court was yesterday taken .
change OF venue TO the court Of Justi,
\ Field but it is not likely that It will !
! tried before the completion Of the hea r4r
In the district court
Correction.
. BY an unfortunate error in names 2
article in the World Herald Friday W,
made to say that ]. L, Smith was the ma