The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1907-07-10
Court Holds insufficient
Basis Laid for Such
Testimony.
HAYWooD's SIDE OF CASE Is
APT TO CONSUME REMAINDER
OF THE wEEK-REBUTTAL BY
STATE is NOT NOW EXPECTED
BEFORE NEXT WEEK.
Rx Associated Press.

Boise. Idaho, July 9.-The defense
today charged Detective James NC
Partland was guilty of an attempt to
manufacture testimony against Hay
wood, but was unsuccessful in getting
the basis and detail of such charge
before the jury
A A Swaine, a Denver newspaper
correspondent, was called and queS-
toned as to a conversation he mad
with Mcfarland in Denver last fall
Senator Borah objected on the ground
that no foundation had been laid 1or
Il. The defense explained the test-
mcny was offered for the purpose OF
showing a conspiracy existed between
pine owners and Pinkertons TO Sc
cure the conviction and execution OF
the prisoner MCFARLAND approached
this witness. with an attempt to man
ufacture testimony" said Mr.. barrow,
and believe / have the right to show
it,"
Judge Wood sustained the states
objection
Allen F. Gill, Master Mechanic
Tiger and Norman Mine and wife
were also witnesses, relating that Or
chard attempted to sell them an in
terest in the Hercules mine in 1899.
More Dispositions.
The reading of the deposition
in connection with the explo-
sion at the residence of Fred
Bradley, whom Orchard swears he
twice attempted to assassinate, con-
, tinued today as one of the closing
features on the side of the defense
in the trial of William D. Haywood,
accused of the murder of Frank
Steunenberg. -
The Bradley Incident.
BY the state; the Bradley incident
is looked up3hSasS one of the most
important features Of their case IN
support of the Orchard story. The
defense has all along maintained that
the attempt to poison Bradley and his
whole household and the explosion
at the house which Orchard says
was caused bya bomb placed by him,
are a fabrication. Orchard says that
he was commissioned by Haywood to
go to San Francisco and kill Bradley,
who had been a consistent enemy TO
organized labor. He swOre that he
first poisoned the milk with arsenic
and failing in this, placed a bomb
under Bradley front door mat with
a string attached TO the dor handle.
1t was, according to Orchard, one of
the bombs invented by Pettibone.
Bradley mdnqleO.
At the time given by Orchard, an
explosion occurred at the Bradley
house Just as Bradley himself was
coming out of the house smoking a
cigar. Bradley was terribly mangled,
but recovered and the witness said
the porch of the house was badly
damaged. Shortly after the explosion
the owner of the house sued the gas
company for damages and got judg-
ment because of an escape or gas,
which, it was claimed, caused the ex-
plosion. Then came the Orchard con-
fession and an appeal was taken
against the judgment, but the higher
court sustained the lower court
BradIey's Views.
When the case against Haywood
came up, a commission was appointed
to go to San Francisco and take
dispositions. Fred Miller, for the de-
Tense and Mr.. Van Duyn of the prose
cution, were selected. The dispositions
are lengthy and the whole OF the two
sessions today probably will be taken
up in the reading OF them. Bradley
still maintains his first position that
the explosion was caused by gas, but
he modified his positive claim in
which he says that the theory of a
bomb is possible. He does not deny
that the milk was poisoned.
Bounds of Possibility.
Ali of the witnesses so far exam
ined under the dispositions, however,
have admitted that the main features
of Orchards account are within the
bounds Of possibility. Orchard says
that the bomb was placed under the
door mat and Mr.. Bradley says his
face was filled with the particles
from the material and with glass from
the door.
1t is not likely now that Meyer
will go on the stand before tomorrow.
His address will probably take one
day and on Thursday Haywood will
be called His examination probably
will take up the remainder of the
| week and the states rebuttal IS hard
| ly looked for before next Monday.