Palestine daily herald. [volume] (Palestine, Tex.) 1902-1949, 1909-01-27
WRIGHT NOT GUILTY IN
anti .NEPOT|sM CASE
ONLY TECHNICAL DEFENSE WAS
MADE AT RUSk TUESDAY
IN OPPOSITION TO THE
STATES CASE.
History Of The Case
Three States Witnesses Testified to
the Occurrences BY Which Mr..
Wright's Brother-In-Law
Was Appointed as
Shipping Clerk.

HuSk, TeXaS, Jan. 26.-ln the dis
trict court here today in the case
against J. w. Wright, former financial
agent of the state penitentiary, YER
dict of not guilty was returned by the
jury at o'clock this afternoon. The
two additional jurors were selected
early this morning and at 10 o'clock
the testimony by the state was intro
duced. The first witness offered by
the state was Judge F. B. Quinn, as
sistant financial agent of Rusk. He
testified that J. W. Wright was on or
about the 14th day of January, 1909,
the acting financial agent of the state
penitentiaries, and that employees at
the state sawmill received their pay
through the financial agent and that
same was paid out of the penitentiary
funds upon warrant properly audited
after same had been approved by the
general office at Huntsville.
The next witness introduced by
the state was T. w. Duckett, foreman
of the sawmill operated by the state.
He testified that on the 18th day of
January, 1909, the defendant came out
ofSthe sawmill where he was at work;
that he asked the defendant for a
Shipping clerk, stating to him that he
was in great need of such help; that
the defendant asked him how Dan Nc
Heod would suit him; that he told him
would do all right, he guess
ll!lel --tlefeuda ut then asked if
he thought that salary of SIS wPuld
be commensurate with the work; that
he (witness) told him that he thought
it would; that the defendant then
said: "Well, will have him (McA
Leod) to report for duty
Witness further said that defend
ant said something about going down
to Austin and that he would see the
governor about it; that in a day or
two Dan Mcleod came to the sawmill
and reported for duty; that he had
been engaged as shipping clerk since
then and was to draw a salary of SIS
per month for his services, to be
paid out of the funds for the main
tenance of the penitentiary; that no
one had ever said anything to him
about appointing Dan Mcleod or any
other person except the defendant.
The next witness introduced was
Dan Mcleod, who testified that he
was engaged as shipping clerk at the
state sawmill at the salary of $75 r
that he was related to the e.
PENDANT by affinity, having married
the defendants twin sister; that he
came to the state sawmill in response
to telephone message his son re-
ceived from some one at some place.
That the sender of the message did
not get him over the phone, but gave
his son Instructions, which were de-
livered to him. The witness could go
no further in this matter, as the same
was hearsay testimony and was OBJ
iected by the defendants counsel.
With this testimony the state closed
its case.
The defendant offered no testimony
except a technical defense, such as
moving to quash the indictment and
making motion asking the court to |
instruct the jury to return
I verdict for the defendant, and alleg-
ng that there was no proof to show |
hat the defendant made the appoint
nent and that if he did there was no |
proof that he made it in Cherokee
county.
The court and jury were addressed
~ j. w. Edwards and Cone Johnson
If Tyler and by w. B. O'Quinn, dis
riot attorney, for the state. The case
Eas turned over to the jury at
flock and at they came in with a
/ )dict of not guilty.