Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1912-07-13

VINO Went ovef 10 utH anu oiohru
congratulations.
Lame Asks AcquittaI.
When Mr.. Lane had made his mo-
ton for the ~acquittal of Mr.. Murray,
Robert H. McCarter, former attorney
general, who is assisting PROSECUTOR
Pierre P. Garven in this trial. said:
ct do not think there IL the slight
est proof against Mr.. Murray"
Then, on behalf of the court, Su-
preme Court Justice Francis ].
Swayze said:
I'VE find Mr.. Murray not guilty"
When this announcement was made
Mr.. Agnew. for Mr.. Andrews, asked
the indulgence Of the court for a few
minutes on his motion for the ac-
quittal of his. client.
Justice Swayze said: I'VE do not
care to hear argument unless you rest
your case"
Mr.. Agnew: I've did rest our case,
and state that the prosecution has
failed to connect William G. Andrews
with any of the unlawful acts men
toned in thei Indictment against
him."
Justice Swayze: "one moment.
please. AS a question of convenience.
legally you have rested. and tech
nically are entitled to give argument.
But this could Nbe better done at the
~
u.c. n.o.a
..th. &C. -s.tsa ~, oas. To,,s.
80 N--... ! 100.
os y $500. -
am ~
: auu -
naAe ino'.on -, " s
nv a ss., .~-as
~ YOU ies' you ~
Judge o"ayAe
N Proof in the Case"
I'VE will not rest our case at pres
ent," said Mr.. Hood, but the reason
we make this motion Is. first. that
there is no proof In the case of any
conspiracy characterized In the In
d,ctments. and, in the next place,
there is no proof of participation OF
any conspiracy in 1908 by any of the
defendants, and particularly SO of Mr..
Murray, Mr.. Andrews, Mr.. Skinner
and Mr. Metzger. I would be pleased
10 argue the proposition. but you
have said you would not hear it,"
Mr. Apnew entered his motion for
Mr. Andrews. whereupon the court
asked Mr.. McCarter II anything JUS
tiAed holding Mr.. Andrews. Mr.. NC
Garter said there was nothing beyond
his narticipation In bids.
"Bids7" asked the court.
.yesp answered Mr.. McCarter, and
7 think there ia a great deal of sig
nifcance attached to that"
,Tb court then declined to acquit
the defendant.
The defense was opened by the call
ing OF Clarence A. Fullerton. Of the
Gorham Manufacturing Company. of
Fifth avenue, Manhattan, manager
of the architectural bronze depart
ment. He was called as an expert
on the bronze and bronze trimmings
installed In the Court House. He was
prepared with two sets of plans. n
representing those for the bronze in
the new building when 1t was origi-
nally contracted for, and the other a
revised set of plans.
Mr.. Lane agreed that that was so
and then proceeded to state that 1t
was the purpose of the defense to call
experts to contradict the testimony
given by experts for the State and
show that their figures on the value
of furnishings and material In the
Court House were far too excessive
and to go into all the matters brought
out by the State.
This statement elected a low wills
tie from many in the courtroom. for
1t left the impression that the trial
may last for another month.
WHY Changes Were Made.
r. r.,u.r. u..s -.
49, 49, ~ e., ~ 49, 10
fo,,na sha,t n 1s7 $500 - 49,
.,saa 80 go aynns az. 80
100000 anothns soo aa,,.a y
~ ~ haa snas,,.t~s aha..t a rna
na,nas Ao.ard,ns ~ a. s.,,,s~s
p,sns ha discoxaraa - .ass.;as.,
= nan aor,Ss rha 10
sspuu &c co. -.
go nnst,nn a.arotsans h.-s go
49, according ~ ths r.,,,s.a n,sns
~ 80 avar,.Laa aha,t ~ aos
no,nds rh,s = aafansS a.caunts
-" ~ ~ saot 49, ens,asrsh, :