The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-07-09
TESTIMONY
DISPOSITIONS READ
AT HAYWOOD TRIAL.
Defense Trying to Show That San Fran
ciscan Was Not Injured by Bomb,
as Orchard swore.

BOISE, Ida, July 9.-The reading of
the dispositions taken in San Francisco
in connection with the explosion at the
residence of Fred Bradley, whom Or
chard swore he twice attempted to as
sassinate, continued today as one of the
closing features on the side of the de-
Tense in the trial of William D. Hay
wood, accused of the murder of Frank
Steunenberg.
BY the State the Bradley incident is
looked upon as one of the most impor-
tant 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 by "a bomb
placed by him, are a fabrication. Or
chard says that he was commissioned
by Haywood to go to San Francisco
and kill Bradley, who had been a con-
sistent enemy to organized labor. He
swore that he first poisoned the milk
with arsenic, and, failing in this, placed
a bomb under Bradley's front door mat,
with a string attached to the door
handle. 1t was, according to Orchard,
one of the bombs invented by Petit
bone. 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 front porch of the house was
badly damaged.
Shortly after the explosion the owner
of the house sued the gas for
damages and got a Judgment BECAUSE
of an escape of gas which, 1t was
claimed, caused the explosion. Then
came the Orchard confession and an
appeal was taken against the judgment,
but the higher court sustained the
lower court.
When the case against Haywood
came up a commission was appointed
to go to San Francisco and take de-
positions.
Fred Miller, for the defense, and Mr..
Vanduyn, of the prosecution, were Sc
lected. The dispositions are lengthy
and the whole of the two sessions today
probably will be taken up in the read
ing.
Bradley still maintains his first posi-
ton thai the explosion was caused by
gas, but he modified his positive claim
and says the theory of a bomb is posi-
BILE. He does not deny that the milk
was poisoned.
All of the witnesses so far examined
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 that his
face was filled with the particles from
the mat and with glass from the door.
1t is not likely now that Meyer will
go on the stand before tomorrow. His
testimony 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 hardly looked for
before next Monday.
The day began with a continuance of the
testimony. of j. b. Reilly, who lived near
the Bradley apartments. Reilly declared
he had passed the apartment house but n
few minutes before the explosion and saw
a Japanese servant cleaning the stoop and
vestibule. He did not believe 1t was within
the range of possibility for any one to
have placed a bomb there In the manner
Indicated by Orchard in the time which
elapsed between his passing and the report
of the explosion. Orchard testified that
after placing the bomb he boarded a street
car and got out OF hearing before the
explosion occurred.
The next deposition taken up was of Mrs.
Charles Pickard. who, as Mrs. Grow, had
been employed by the Bradleys as cook.
She told of having smelled gas In the
house for several days prior to the ex-
ploslon and had called up the gas company
to complain of it.
Mrs. Crow denied absolutely that she had
gone to the theatre with Orchard, as he
had testified. She declared that he told a
falsehood when he testified to that effect.
The witness declared the explosion was
more like a thud than a sharp report.