The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1906-02-07
CHARGED WITH PERJURY
Examination of Colonel Mann,
Editor of Town Topics.
Testimony Of Two Witnesses Who
contradicted Colonel Mann as to
the Latter Writing the Words 10.
r." and "W. D. M" on the Ward
Letter-Secretary In Contempt.

the Latter Writing tne WoTue W.
r." and NV. D. NJ" on the Ward
Letter-secretary In Contempt.
New York, Feb. 6.-In the examina-
tion Of Colonel William D. Mann, edi-
tor of Town Topics, on charge OF
perjury, the stenographic record of the
Hapgood trial was admitted as evil
Sence by Justice McAvoy, who con-
Quoted the hearing.
Bartholomew Monihan, official ste
nographer at the Hapgood trial, testi-
fled that Colonel Mann said during
that trial that he was absolutely sure
he had not written the characters 20.
K" or "W. D. M" on the Ward letter
At this point Assistant District At
torney Hart said: "The reason the par
agraph referring to Reginald Ward
was not put in the record was because
it was of too scandalous a character
to put there"
He then introduced In evidence an
article from Town Topics referring to
Ward In pleasant manner, which he
said was printed after Colonel Mann
had obtained shares of stock from
Ward.
Martin w. Littleton, counsel for Col
onel Mann, argued that there was
nothing In the Objectionable para
graph which indicated that it referred
10 Count Ward. Mr.. Hart replied that
later on he would prove that Ward
was the person referred to. He then
read portions of Colonel Mann's testi-
mony about his receiving copper
shares from Count Ward through
Wooster to show that the defendant
had knowledge of the Ward para
graphs.
Mr.. Hart continued reading from the
testimony of Mr.. Wayne in the Hap
good case. Wayne testified that the
Objectionable paragraph was about
Count Ward, and further swore that
the 20. K" and initials "W. D. M" on
exhibit No. 81, in his opinion were In
the handwriting of Colonel Mann.
At the Hapgood trial Moses Ellis
Wooster swore that the 20. K" and
the initials were written by Colonel
Mann and this portion Of Wooster's
testimony was offered.
william L. Daniels, secretary and
froo cnrar - tbo UHAryY, n,npioo Dtrh1fch.
ing company said that he had per-
formed the duties of secretary and
treasurer of the corporation for three
years but that he did not have charge
of the files Of the subscription depart
ment.
Mr.. Littleton cited the opinion of
Justice Bradley In 1886, In which he
ruled that the seizure of papers was
virtually compelling defendant to be
a witness against himself. He said
that asking Daniels about the papers
in the office of Town Topics was un-
warranted under the law and an afro
cious act by the district attorney. Mr..
Hart offered in evidence copy of a
subpoena duces tecum served on Dan
iels and signed by Justice McAvoy.
Daniels admitted that he had not pro-
duced list and the papers called for
by the subpoena. He said that he had
no control of the free list of Town
Topics and had made no effort to CON-
ply with the courts order after being
served with the subpoena. Mr.. Hart
said that Mr.. Daniels had rendered
himself liable to punishment for con-
tempt of court and that the district at
torney intended to make motion to
show cause why the witness should
not be punished for contempt.