The Idaho recorder. [volume] (Salmon City, Idaho) 1886-1927, 1907-07-11
IW0OD NOW TO Be THE ATTRACTION |!

Inc prosecution was also pleased to
have it shown that while Bradley
was still inside the uoor when the
explosion occurred particles of glass
from the door, hairs from the rug
that was outside the door, and pieces
OF stone and cement from the mosaic
floor OF the vestibnle were blown into
his body. 1t will be contepded that
this shows conclusively that the ex-
plosion was from the outside and
could not have been caused by gas in.
side the house.
The defense, on the other hand, is
satisfied that the depositions show
that 1t would have been impossible
for Orchard to have reached the ves-
tibule and placed the bomb in the
manner and time described by him,
tnat the evidence, and particularly
the effect iof the explosion shows
that gas leak was the cause; that
there we're not two explosions and
that Orchards testimony as to his
movements In the rear Of the build
ing, when he claims he poisoned the
milk, is shown by physical conditions
to be false.
The delay caused by the length of
the Bradley depositions may possibly
defer the appearance of Haywood as a
witness In his own behalf until the
third morning.
The entire morning session was
taken up with the reading of the tes.
timony by the defense on the subject
of the explosion at the home Of Fred
". Bradley In Washington street,
San Francisco, in 1905.
The testimony was taken by com
mission appointed by Judge Wood
who is presiding at the present trial
and is intended to contradict Harry
Orchards story as to the placing OF ;
bomb on the front porch Of the Brad
ley house, as part Of the conspirac,
alleged against the Western Fedora
tion OF Miners, Of which the stat
asserts that the Steunenberg murde
was an incident.
The defense during the stay OF th
: commission in San Francisco secures
the testimony of Bradley himself ant
sevreal Others, expressing the belle
that the explosion was due to ga
and declaring that the hayo
wrought by 1t was not caused by dy
. Mantle. Orchard declared that th
I bomb arranged by him to be explod
ed when the front door was opene
e contained about ten pounds Of dyna
: mite encased In large section G
I lead pipe.
t The reading OF the testimony
which was taken In question and al
D swer form, was begun immediatel
e after the convening OF court at te
S o'clock. Attorney Clarence Darro
r undertook the long talk and seate
: himself In the high witness chat
i facing the jury.
z The attorney first read the test
p mony of Walter II. Linforth, Il
e owner of the apartment house
IS which Bradley lived. Linfortb sue
the gas company just after the e
j. plosion and was awarded $40, 900 dan
'e ages. With the Orchard coDfessit
j. as basis the gas company Is seekir
new trial.
I" Linforth, who lived In the ne
: building to the apartments. declare
:. that the noise OF the explosion W
- terrific and the windows In hous
% for blocks around were broken. Hu
~ rying to the scene, he could not SIM
any powder nor did he see any fra
" ments OF lead.
A. In the basement of the apaItme
10 house there were seven gas metel
: Two months after the explosion b
plumbers found hole In the back
be one OF the meters. The buildi
no was OF frame, and gas escaping
ad the cellar could rise between I
H. walls 10 the vestibule, where the
he plosion occurred.
,k The Linforth testimony bad .
M been completed when the lunche
adjournment until ] 30 p. N. was
ne dered.