The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-06-22
STATE RESTS
 CASE IN BOISE
(Confinaed from Page one.)

down with another man."
 Yes what nextT'
 The other man got in the buggy and they said they would be back soon, ana drove off together"
 Do you know this other mani"
 'Yes sir; have seen him."
 Would you know him now?"
 "Yes sir" -
 Look around and say If you can see him here."
 The negro looked over the defense side and pointed a finger at Hay wood
 "Yes sir, that's the man" he said.
 There was a pause and silence only broken by stir among the specta- tors.
 It was the first connection of Hay wood with Orchard and a strong cor rotation of the Orchard story
 How much did you get for the out fitT
 "s110."
 ''who paid your? 7
 MT. Orchard"
 You just got the money and gave Orchard bill of sale?"
 NO sir. The bill of sale was made to MT. Pettibone."
 He described the horse as a little black mare and the vehicle as a top buggy.
 Seahorn was only cross-examined. He said he met Orchard at the peni- tentiary after coming to Boise. He said he was summoned by Pinkerton detectives and received his fare and expenses from them in advance.
 Seahorn proved to De the last Wit- ness for the state.
 Senator Borah stated that with the exception of proving the sending of money order for SIS by the Western Union from Haywood in Denver to Steve Adams in ogden, Utaah, in 1903, the states case was closed.
 Mir. Richardson for the defense said that they would agree that the state could file the telegrams as soon as they were received. Senator Borah said that the telegrams would be in Boise by this evening.
 State Closes.
 with this exception then, your hon. or" said Senator Borah, the state Is ready to close its case"
 There was some wrangling over the reading of a long opinion delivered in the Colorado courts and which the de- fense said should be read as it had been offered as evidence for the state.
 Judge Wood looked over 1t and de- nied that it be read to the Jury. This closed the states case and at 1925, the court adjourned until 1:30 p. m., when the defense will move that the court instruct the jury to render ver- dict of not guilty.
 When court was called to order after the recess E. F. Richardson for the de- fense announced that he had filed a motion with the clerk of the court. Judge Wood dismissed the jury in charge of the bailiffs pending the read ing,of the motion and the arguments.
 The text of the motion Is as fol- lows:
 Now, on this Fist day of June, A. D., 1907. comes the above defend ant, William D. Haywood, by his at- torneys and moves the court to ad- wise the jury in the above entitled case to acquit the defendant William D. Haywood. in accordance with section 7S77 of the revised statutes of the state of Idaho, for the following req sons and each and every one of them, to wit: First, the only testimony which tends to connect the defendant Will liam D. Haywood, charged in the in- dictment here is of Harry Orchard, who testifies that he was an accomplice in the commission of said offense.
 Second. because the testimony of the alleged accomplice in this case is un- corroborated by any other evidence which in itself and without the testi- mony of the accomplice tends to con- meet the defendant with the commis- sion of the offense charged
 Third, the corroboration of the &C., complice witnesss in this case Is not sufficient, since it fails to show the commission of the offense or the cir cumstances thereof in any way which tends to connect this defendant there- with.
 Fourth, because the testimony in the case is insufficient to warrant the rendition of verdict or the pronounce ment of sentence thereon, under sec- tion 7S72 of the revised statutes of the state of Idaho.
 Fifth, because the evidence re- ceived in the case in immaterial, ir- relevant and insufficient upon which to find a verdict, or to sustain one if found.
 Sixth, because the evidence wholly fails to disclose that the defendant is in any wise connected with or had knowledge of the perpetration of the offense charged in the indictment.
 Seventh. because, while 1t Is charged in the indictment that this defendant was personally present and did com init the crime therein charged upon the body of one Frank Steunenberg on or about the 30th day of December. 1905, nevertheless the evidence fails to dis close that he was present or that he was either an aid or abetter or procur- CT or adviser of any one connected with. or who committed the alleged offense which compassed the death of the said Frank Steunenberg in this, to wit That the evidence which tends to connect the defendant on trial herewith is given solely and wholly by one Harry Orchard who admits that he himself was guilty of the perpetra- tion thereof and without the aid of the testimony of the said Harry Orchard the seIf-confessed perpetrator of the said offense, there is no testimony or evidence which in any wise tends to connect the defendant with the com mission of the said offense, and the said testimony and evidence of the said Harry Orchard is wholly uncorroborat- ed within the meaning and intent of Section 1871 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho;
 "Wherefore. the defendant William D. Haywood moves the court to advise the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant. (Signed) E. F. Rich ardson, John F. Nugent, Peter Breen, Fred Miller, Edgar Wilson, Attorneys for the defendant"
 MT. Richardson commenced his ar gument at once. He opened by read ing from the statute of the state of Idaho which says that conviction can not be had on the testimony of an ac- complice unless it Is corroborated by other evidence which by itself and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice tends to connect the de- fendant with the commission of the crime"
 He read at length from authorities and opinions bearing upon this point, laying stress upon the view that