The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1910-11-02
BROTHERS At LAW {!
SAD CASE


LATTER - JUDGE ADVISES
THEM TO SHAKE HANDS AND
MAKE UP-QUARREL START
ED IN 1898.
Friday Afternoon.
The case OF the Commonwealth VS..
Luke p. Richardson. Perjury. Ed
ward j. Richardson, prosecutor. The
following jurors were selected: J.
A. Stephens, Starrucca; j. d. Rosen-
crantz, Honesdale; George Schwei-
singer, Texas; Daniel Acker, Damas-
Gus; George Bryant South Canaan;
John McDavitt, Damascus; Grant
White, Clinton; Alvah A. Seeley, Dy-
berry; Jeff Hoover, Lake; Horton
Megargle, South Canaan; Will Steph-
enson, Lebanon; Thomas Salmon,
Honesdale. All the rest of the jurors
were discharged from further attend
ance, as this was the last case on the
calendar. district Attorney M. e.
Simons had p. II. Iloff, Esq, asso-
ciated with him for the prosecution.
c. A McCarty, Esq, and F. p. Kim
Bile, Esq, appeared for the defendant
Attorney Iloff in addressing the
jury told them that the case was "one
of unusual Importance, one in (al-
leged) conflict with what the Bible
says, Thou shalt not bear false wit
ness against thy neighbor. Perjury
is charged, based on the allegation
that the defendant "swore falsely to
a certain transaction which involved
property, etc" That there was a mis-
carriage of justice in the case where
the jury was misinformed and misled
by the testimony. I'VE do not seek
restitution of property, but we do
seek to show that what a man says
on the stand is 'the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth"
A number of files and records were
placed in evidence, and E. j. Rich
ardson was called as the first wit
ness.
E. ]. Richardson testified to being
a brother of Luke p. Richardson He
stated that a settlement of all mat
ters had been made between him and
Luke Richardson and his wife Sep
tember 29, 1898. Objection was
made to this and sustained. He ad-
mitted having the Aetna insurance
policy at the time of this settlement;
that he got it from Luke Richard
son; that he loaned the latter $1100.
Il turned the check from the COM
pany over to Adam Theobold," said
the witness Luke owed me $11OO,
when the policy matured." He loan
ed his brother money, and the latter
made assignment of policy to him.
He also said his brother made anoth-
er assignment of the policy to his
wife. Luke Richardson and his faith
er were in the bottling business at
Shanty Hill in 1897. After his
fathers death, the witness said his
business was given over to his broth
er. Luke was treasurer of Palmyra
township and came to him with mon
ey and had him draw checks for him.
The case was marked by an un-
usually large number of exhibits.
Frank NJ. Monahan, Esq, of Scran-
ton, testified to being an attorney-at-
law practicing in Honesdale in 1898
and to acting as attorney for E. ].
Richardson, and to settlement be-
ing made between those parties in
that year.
Burgess John Kuhbach was unable
to give exact information on the wit
ness stand as to whether Edward or
Luke Richardson got certain goods.
The driver who delivered them was
dead and no records are in his pos
session.
G. w. Ames testified to being a
Hawley banker in 1897 and 1898,
and to discounting a note for 5000,
which he identified.
Further consideration of the case
was postponed until Saturday morn
ing.
Saturday Morning.
Court convened Saturday morning
at O'Clock, the case of Common
wealth versus Luke P. Richardson,
of Hawley, on the charge of perjury
being continued from Friday after
noon.
Edward j. Richardson, the pros
ecutor, was recalled to the stand. He
identified the photographs of the
check as well as the Endorsements.
He said he executed all agreemnts
between me and Luke" At the
hearing of the arbitrators he testi-
fed, he made no offset as there was
nothing to be offered, since we made
a settlement before"
Adam Theobold, of Texas township,
testified that Luke Richardson owed
him $1,000. Edward Richardson
paid the judgment to him, he said.
Luke and Edward Richardson were
present at Ine time OF payment. He
thought Edward handed him the
check, but Luke was present.
A number of checks were offered
in evidence, e. ]. Richardson recalled
and the commonwealth rested.
c. A. McCarty, Esq, for the de-
Tense, argued that the prosecution
had failed to show the materiality
OF the evidence; failed to show the
falsity; failed to make out the case.
M. e. Simons, Esq, district attor-
ney, argued that it was for the court
to say whether 1t was material or
not.
The case was then withdrawn from
the jury, and they were directed to
render a verdict for the defendant,
but leave 1t to the jury as to the
fixing of the costs, as it was a mis-
demeanor case. Attorneys MeCarty
and Nj. E. Simons then addressed the
jury, and Judge Searle charged them
telling them ii would be necessary
Continued on Page Five.)