Arizona republican., 1910-05-19

ing or rather a possible omission, Of certain evidence in concerning the note in question which as matter of fact had no connection whatever with the infested shipment There was a great deal of matter brought into the case by the defendants attorneys which was not related to the particu- lar case being tried. The attorney general did not offer objection to the extended cross questioning of Profes- sor Forbes and of me on such matters since the commission was perfectly willing to explain any detail in con nection with it's work concerning which there was any question of pro priety or legality.
 Justice ParlleI's decisions balanced on the note and his understanding oi it's supposed direct connection with the condemned shipment" Concerning this Dr Morrill, states: MT. Elem ings memory was at fault when he testified that it vs.s given to the en- tomologist of the commission one morning and that immediately there after the car was condemned. This seemed to mix up the note and the condemned shipment and much weight was given this supposed transaction by Mir Bennett in his argument last Saturday. Mir. Fleming was uncertain as to the date the note was given or as to the date the car afterward con demned was received. In a ease of uncertainty of this kind it is to be presumed that q man correctly dated note or check unless he is certain that he did otherwise. As far as am con cerned am positive that the note was correctly dated. As had no object in holding the note other than as q guar anty that certain field inspection work would be paid for by Mir. Fleming ac- cording to our agreement We consulted a calendar and the note was made [" fall due at a time when money would be needed to pay for the special in- spectors service. The note was dated and correctly dated on the 1th of April According to the records on file at the railroad offices the fourth car of trees for MT Fleming was de livered at the packing house on April ' Mir. Fleming testified that the in through one day and MT Bowen of ."'Sh t'SNiii'h tiistN llt 'dlIl' " I i''- nix on the 7th to assist in the in spection and returned that night to Mesa with the understanding that he was to return in the morning MT Fleming was notified by me that the car could not be released on the morn ing of the Sth. or on the morning fol- lowing the arrival of the car. accord ing to his own testimony
 Personally l denied flatly on the witness stand that I condemned the shipment immediately after receiving the note and that I was correct is clearly proven by the date of the note in question and the testimony of Mir. Fleming and MT. Bowen and the records of the railroad company The circumstances connected with the note do not therefore give very good sup port tn the claim that had taken un fair advantage of MT. Fleming.
 Moreover as I stated on the witness stand the note for S425.00 represented tv., and e-half cents per tree for the 17,000 trees in the first three carloads It had m connection with the fourth carload or with the Stewart trial and leaving it out of consideration there could be no question about the only decision which could have been reach ed As far as Stewart is concerned I am glad the case was dismissed even though on an error since the charge was A serious one and the commission did not desire to do more than estab- fish their duty in regard to action up on the condemned shipment