Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1906-11-17
Jury DEBATES
RUTHERFORD
CASE
Closing Arguments Made by
Counsel The Evidence
Is Reviewed.

morning Argument WnH begun hy
the attorneys shortly after he diH.
lrlrt court caufened in The afternoon.
rhia mornlt / arguments DOB the case
were reaumH The attorneys con-
cludod at noes Judge Abbott win In.
sJfucl fhe Wfy al $3.50 lhlH after.
noon and 81 retired a verdict is oX.
peCtUd at auy time
AZ ihr fo-clusfun of The tcnimuny
ID wns agreed that each side of che
case would take Two hours and d halt
inf the ufal argument before che jury
Attorney klock Tor the defendant TOOK
up fhe defense again iAia morning
He was followed hy Attorney Wllker
son who closed the argumeai for the
territory. Judge Ahbolis Instructions
TO iho jury consumed perhaps half an
10ur
Az ,hs conclusion pf the prosonta
u0n uf che case in oral argument 90
90 iuEy by District Attorney CLANCY
Attorney George s. Kluck opposed the
argument ior the defense with thf
dramatic statement ihnt Rutherford
mad WORK certain document almost
to shrcds hy carrying Y IN his pocket
10 defend himself. aB Mf Kluck put
~. HaanlnHt mo slenih bounds wbu are
following him from place iu place. j
o. lnc proof OF his innocence which De
dafrs not part with. BIZ declared.
Then 49, klnck stated the prosrcu
tun attempted tn prevent Rutherlor'
from giving hIs testimony |n the case
GA the ground tina, hc had heca pre-
Yiousiy convicted uf a felony in tht
state ot Missouri
"Whon thc criminal charge was
brought tho prosecution made mo
tom Itself chat the court dismiss tns
ease and pay the cusis so The accused
1n TOO ground that there was .oihlne
ln AK charged against him and it "a
the proof 81 bis innocence there that
Is disclosed on tails paper which mr
Rutherford has carried constantly
with him
Mrs. Rutherford. who has lWon fol
iowiae the trial closely ainge he be-
ginning. broke down and wcpt
Sir. Kluck stated further that thf
premiums collected By Rutherford
were remitt0d 20 the company and re-
viewed thh testimony wa Mr.. Hos
letter of Colorado who declared By
heard ihe verbal agreement between
Rutherford and Vailandingham. onf
% tho officers Of the State life lneur
anco company. and said bee heard
Rutherford insist that The contract bs
reduced in writing. which NailnndiEa
ham refused fhe prosecution hhf
tried 30 show inst the agreement wal
a secret and verbal one between Val.
inndluEhnm and Rutherford M ihe in
stance Of Rutherford.
Mr. Kioch hens launched into an nr
raiFnmrut of Auditor > =. Egan AND
vice President Quinn Of the stats
Life Insurance company, whom bg
slid we're nrraccuilnR Rutherford ems
attempting 90 denrieve him or th'
profits of q contract which Nailanding
ham had mudo with him and SCORING
me complaining Witnesses for not be-
Ing present % the trial
cross Examination Yesterday
when Rutherford was cross Is
amined yesterday morning byNAsior
ney Wilkeraon, who on counsel for ih'
insurance company. ID assisting Dis
trict Attorney Clancy, ho sought q
show ay cross questioning the witness
that the SUMS o. money be is accuses
OF having cmhezElod were more thai
The sum total ui hla claims against 20
company, Il be had such claims,
Rutherford was shown duplicates q
letters written BY the company al
handing 8 spitlomcnt aad prElng hin
20 send in such claims with the bal
ance OF the money due the eOmpan
on certain policy premiums. The VII
ness had a lausC uf memory an
cumid1't recall having received "a
letter Ia question
/ Mr. Egau wua recalled ip the stan
and stated that he VAS present AZ II
i dlanapolis. Indiana. when Wee presI
dent Quinn of the company, whoi
Rutherford had stated. ratified tho a
! legged verbal rebate" agreement, col
tho accused ihat HIS accounts were
bad shape Win che company and ihl
De must settle soon
] "At that time there was 30 elai
made hY Rutherford that tle compau
owed him anything Egan declared
rhe $1,000 Rutherford testified
lad seat the company laai june ar
I lll other monies he forwarded h'
tween thar time and the 9th of Oct
Der we're hy Ruiherfords direction "a
piled io The payment 0f policies th
had Trnfionfi3 been issued ENa
said Hnd he produced lisi oi uulicil
Nith De- premiums fnr which fie aa
Nuiherierd had uoi iiquIdated
i The territory Irled fn show th
lone us tho Ereulums bad Deea pa
. / 90 policies introduced hy ihlm in "a
ienre
Prosecutor CLANCY iu opening q
enge. rnyia Wod thIa testimony stain
fhat lhr company hal persistent
eallfl upon hufnrlof iur an a
! counting und ihlf hn had refused
mako statement ul nny kina,
hpuEh both Quien Und Eean had du
ed hIm repeatedly and That he mu
! have known ihaf fhe kiad uf 81
p, tract ho is reuutfd t0 have made so
Z Naliandingham was illegal and
g legged that Vallandingham repud
, lion of ne contract and g chain
oihel circumstance tended ru sh,
7 that the rebate story was a fahrll
Q lion 0n the part of lhe accused 20 cuy
d 90 hiH shortages, ihnt be- violated
rule OF he company when DEE Jailed
:. remit all iho nei premiums collects
: lai once
q lie Gwen refused No send "a che
q coyefing he haiauce nf sums De o.
e above TIE claims be Said he hl
u against tho rumpHny pending iha
a iuslmonf of me differences and
D. never sent iho company "a eiateml
q uf hls lccuuais or ihe credits ash
% af any fimDN said the prosecutor
~ lHny secret agreement was made
=. tween Rutherford and Nallandinshn
"a was fn deffaui other agents and
accused has shown hy hiH oWn tD
mnay thnt ID Nah impf0pCr
I. mionnalIan LrNm chIeaen 5 b