Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-11-03

Witness Charges District
! Attorney With Effort to
Extort Testimony.

CHARGES that c. H. Lingenfelter,
United. states district attorney tried
to intimidate the witnesses Of the de-
Tense Unto perjuring themselves on
the stand and connecting testimony in
the Medbury lottery case were freely
made by those connected with the
defense yesterday afternoon In the fed
eral court. a
on the witness. stand and in the
presence of the court and jury. c. f.
Sanders declared: Yes, ] was In
tlicted by the grand jury because
would not testify in this case as you
wanted me to-"
The answer was brought out in the
trial by the questions of the district
attorney himself as to whether San
ders was not under indictment at the
very time that he was testifying for
the defendants, the officers of the
company.
Sanders said, in answer to ques-
ton from the district attorney. that
he had been indicted because Of mis-
refusal to give the testimony that the
prosecuting attorney wanted. He al
so testified that he had sold 212 of the
965 contracts and that he had never
made such statement to any one Of
them and that only two of that num-
her had been brought into court to
testify One OF these, DIR. RiclSrell,
said that no such promise had ever
been made to him. H. Il. Freeland
sold 10 of the contracts while d. 7.
McKnnon sold SO and both testified
that they had never made such pro-
mise. Lawson G. Bradley and Gay :
lord w. Thompson, the defendants
were also on the stand yesterday and
said that they had never instructe
their agents to indicate that there
would be a drawing or lottery
scheme of any sort. Sales were made
they said. in every state in the un-
icp.,
Case Goes to Jury.
Judge Dietrich turned the case over
to the jury last night after Peter f
Cavaney. assistant district attorney
made the only argument. The attor-
neys for the defense refused to say a
word. This deprived the district at
torney from making. the closing argu
ment and the case rested with the adj
dress that the new assistant made.
The courts instructions covered the
definition of lottery. He pointed out
that the jury must satisfy itself as
to how the valuable lots were to oe
distributed. He called the iury's at
tention to the fact that lot would
| have gone together with a hotel oi
new bungalow, for $40, if there had
been no lottery scheme in connection
with it. All of the lots were of tins
one price, while at least one had q
new hotel and several had business
houses and bungalows on them with
| other modern Improvements. This
| question as to whether the company
| intended to give these away for only
$3.50 was raised. 1t was also held b,
\ the Court that If the defendants in any
way indicated, even after the title hat
| gone from their hands. as to how these
| lots should be distributed, they were
| responsible for lottery scheme
| The court mentioned that the liter.
AZURE contained no statement of an!
lottery scheme or any chance plan. II,
pointed out that lottery plan mus
| have some element of chance and tina
| it makes no difference just what tina
element is or how it is carried out.
On motion of the district attorney
the indictments against Samuel 5;
Champlain We're dismissed The on
against Garde Mahoney was dismisse,
on motion of the defense and witho 4
objection on the part of the prosecu
| ton