Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1912-10-06
STATE Scored
COMPLETE VICTORY
CConlinucd from page i1

l' l'nhlilh'd from PAGE -
s0t Us fair "a trial here aa anywhere
j. w. russell ~ Red Fork said M,
people .n his vicinity had never heard
/ ol the Reuter- case, ana for that rea.
son he believed tho defendants could
/ set lmr trial in Tulsa county.
WIN, Chllders Of Red Fork, had
/ heard tho case discussed but had
never read Of H.
AZ This iuncture adjournment Was
taken until 1880 o'clock D. m.
Mrs. Reuter- delayed the opening OF
the afternoon session when she failed
10 appear IN the court room until two
O'Clock
Frank 7 llanifan, a grain merchant
OF Broken Arrow was the first Wit
ness placed on the stand. County At
torney Malloy attempted b. show by
him that no had been approached boy
a representative Of the defense 10 se-
cure am affidavit on the grounds that
II the case were allowed 10 90 20 trial
that County Attorney Malloy who was
h candidate hpT recollection, would
make record that would insure his
success.
Counsel for the defense objected to
this testimony and the objection was
sustained by the court, Tho county at
torney however, succeeded In placing
in the record what he wanted TO pnve
by the witness.
J." ID, Pence, administrator Of the
Reuter- case and bondsman for Mrs
Reuter-, was next called 10 the stand
lie was one Of the uffiants who al
legged that the citizens were so pre-
ludiced that a Jury could not be OBJ
tained
on examination by the county at
lorney Il was brought out that he had
heard only one man say that he was
of the opinion that the defendants
were guilty He also admitted that
he mad not signed the petition G1r Ne
kenzie and Baker, but only for Mrs.
Reuter-.
The state then rested their case
The defense Immediately began PLACING
on the stand the affants who had
made nffiduyits for the state. John
o, Mitchell was first called,
County Attorney Malloy interposed
an objection to his testifylng ON the
grounds that the defense under the
proper procedure had no right to
cross examine the states affiants. lie
was heard at length on the matter
but was oyerruled.
other states affiants were called in
rapid succession by the defense in an
effort 10 break down their affidayits,
but rather unsuccessfully In the most
Of the cases
Those who testified were County
Treasurer John Il. Kramer j. W.
Grafflus, enforcement officer. T.. l..
Roberts, a contractor; W. o. Woody,
police sergeant; w. II Dixon, Mike
Stelger member OF the Tulsa school
board James Bowen, who was fore.
man Of the Sweeney jury; II. =. Por-
ter, deputy sheriff Frank Bowlin, j
Il. Starr, and Or. j. a. Jackman OF
Dawson.
The defense then asked for q post
ponement until Monday on the gn1und
that some of the state affants could
not be reached by subpoena until then
but this was oyerruled by the court
who ordered arguments started.
Attorney Biddson opened for the
defense and went over the ground
covered by the affldavlts, analyzing
the statements to favor the defen-
dants.
He was followed by County Attorney
Malloy who relied principally upon
decision of the criminal court Of ap-
peals which clearly set out the law
on the matter of change of venue. At
torney Charlton for the defense closed
the argument at $50
Immediately Judge Breckenridge
rendered his opinion holding that he
did not believe there was enough pre-
Judice to make 1t necessary to go out
of the county to get jury.
At the request of the counsel for the
defense, the county attorney then an
nounced that he would try Mckenzie
and Baker first. their cases being
Joined.