The daily sentinel., 1909-06-29

employed by Chief of Police Watson
and told to buy whiskey wherever it
was being sold and to deliver his pur-
chases to him to be used as evidence
against the offenders against the
anti-saloon law.
Just before the introduction of the
evidence of Shultz Attorney Fry, for
the defense, formally filed objections
to the certificate from City Clerk
Vorbeck filed by the prosecution to
show that Grand Junction is dry
territory. Attorney Fry maintained
that the certificate was not sufficient
evidence or legal and regular evil
dence proving that the town is dry
territory.
After some arguments the objec-
ton was overruled by the court
Shultz was put through very Sc
we're cross examination by the at
torneys for the defense but was not
shaken from the main thread of his
testimony.
At one time Attorney Welsh asked
Shultz, You are a spotter are you
not?"
THAT is what you call me-" re
sponded Shultz.
For time Shultz hesitated to ans
wer the question concerning who was
employing him but finally admitted
that it was Chief Watson who had
arranged for him to do the detective
work.
Shultz was on the stand when the
noon recess was taken.
At the afternoon session, after the
examination of Shultz had been com
pleted, Hoodenpyle took the stand
and told of going to the barn with
Shultz and seeing Shultz get the
whiskey and pay Powell for it,
Chief Watson then told of receiv-
ing the bottle from Shultz.
! Macarthur told of seeing Shultz go
to the barn for the whiskey.
Some laughter and amusement
was caused when Shultz on cross ex-
animation stated that the bottle did
not look today as though it contained
as much liquor as it did when he
turned il over to Chief Watson.
Macarthur was the last witness in
troduced by the prosecution. The
deputy district attorney then read
the certificate furnished by City
Clerk Norbeck showing the result of
the recent election on the saloon
question. This was the certificate to
which Attorneys Frv and Walsh OBJ
jected but which was admitted as
evidence by the court.
The prosecution started to intro
duce the bottle of liquor that Shultz
had secured from Powell as evidence.
AT once the defense objected on the
grounds that it was not positive that
the bottle contained liquor, that the
mere fact that it was labeled whiskey
was not sufficient Then occurred
a controversy over the admission of
this bottle similar to the controversy
a a a mi r,f tl,a
beer in the trial of the Mexican girl
last week. There were numerous
, sharp arguments and the citation of
several authorities
Finally the court ruled that the
bottle should not go to the Jury as
evidence, thus sustaining the objec-
ton of the defense and proving 3
triumph for that side of the case
The prosecution then rested il.
case
Then on the demand of the at
ltorneys for the defense City Cierl
Vorheck was called to the stand anc
ordered to bring the records of hi.
ottlce showing whether or not the
town is dry territory. Clerk Vor
beck was on the stand for some time
Doc Powell, the defendant. theI
TOOK the stand in his own behalf
Powell stated that he is 65 year.
u "se, mas resided IN western Colo
rado since 1879 and in Grand juno
4 ton many years. He had driven tn,
bus for the st. Regis off and on
4 for the past five years Said tha
4 ne met Shultz several weeks ago
4 Powell said that he was disabled b,
4 fall the latter part of May and haC
\ to quit work temporarily
He said that about June . Shut:
n came to the barn in which Powell
slept, accompanied by another maI
named Lapham, a cowboy, and tha
s Shultz had some whiskey. half pint
and they all drank together Sais
Shultz was at the barn several time
after that. On June l. 3 Shultz cam,
to the barn. asked Powell if he ha,
anything to drink Powell said h,
mad one bottle of beer that he ha,
laid away before the saloons closed
, Continued on page So