Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1913-09-25

He thought the governors counse
knew where he was, and he aske,
that Judge Herrick inform him as t,
the whereabouts of Sarecky and o
Frederick l.. Colwell.
my information is that the man
ayers made no effort to find MI
sarecky" replied Herrick. "He hal
been in this city and has advertised
his whereabouts. We expect to have
him here as a witness. l do not know
of Mr.. Colwells whereabouts, but we
expect him also as a witness"
"Will you endeavor to have them
here by tomorrow or Monday?" asked
Mr.. Stanchfield.
"On that l will confer with my as
sociates," replied Mr. Herrick.
These transactions hundred OF
more in NUMBER" continued Mr.
Stanchfield, constituted a common
scheme a design on the part of the
respondent, to display certain contri-
buttons and conceal others. con
cede that the failure to report one
might have been an accident; two a
coincident, but to fail to account for
100 is crime
Presiding Judge Cullen then rem
dered a long opinien on the position,
at the conclusion of which he an
nounced he would over-rule the mo-
tion and submit it to a vote of lne
court The presiding judge said that
if the present case were criminal
trail he would be disposed to exclude
evidence on charges not specified in
the Indictment.
This case, however, he said
"should be construed with greater lat
itude."
He added that Article of the inn
peachment had mentioned the receipt
Of 100000 by the governor without
naming the donor and that counsel
for the respondent had ample oppor-
tunity to ask for bill Of particulars.
"This," said Judge Cullen, 'fhey
did not do"
Court adjourned for the noon recess
with Tekulsky still on the stand.
At the outset of today's session the
question whether the use which
Governor Sulzer made Of the $2,5OO
given him by Jacob H. schiff constr
tuted larceny, precipitated a heated
argument No final decision was rem
dered by the court. On its determi-
nation depends the question as to
whether the governor is guilty of the
most serious charge against him, in
the event that it should be shown
in every instance that no restriction
was placed by the donors on the gifts
of money received by Mr.. sulzer dur
ing his campaign.
At the opening of today's session
of the sulzer trial Edgar r. Brackett
moved to strike from the records the
answer of Jacob H. schiff yesterday,
in which the witness said he did not
intend his $2,5OO gift to sulzer as
campaign expenses.
"The intent Of the witness cannot
affect the intent of the receiver Of
the fund.-" argued Mr.. Bracket
Louis Marshall, Of the sulzer coun-
sci, argued against the motion
"This case should be considered" +"
he said, precisely the same, as if we
were trying an Indictment as if the
defendant had committed the crime
of larceny. You cannot be made the
victim of the crime of larceny when
the giver places no restrictions on the
gift he makes.
Presiding Judge Cullen refused to
strike out the answer.
Signature is Identified
Thomas NJ Goodwin, the paying
teller Of the Farmers Loan and Trust1
company. was then recalled. He was
questioned by Attorney John B.
stanchfield concerning the instruction
he had received from the attorney
for the trust company aol ID ,oalify
to signatures that had not passed
through the institution in which he is
employed.
Mr.. Stanchfield hanuea the witness
a check of the frank v Strauss COM
pany for $1,000 The check was en-
dorsed william sllzer.n At first the
witness was inclined not to identity
the signature but finally he answer
ed:
Il am Of the opinion that it is the
signature of William Sulzer'
Goodwin then yielded and identified
the signatures on the tive checks ne
had declined to identify Yesterday
those Of Abram Elkus for $500 and
the Lyman H. Spaulding check Tor
e1nn Tho vvffnpee fhnn faefifipdi fo