The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-09-27

| was overruled by Presiding Judge Cullea
who gave lengthy opinion as to the
admissibility of testimony tending to show
| whether it was the intention of contribu-
| tors that the money could be used fol
, private purposes only to meet cam
paign expenses.
| I'm my opinion" he said 'the re-
spondent had the right to introduce
evidence concerning the intent of the
! givers. Here We are considering a
charge of larceny and while testimony
alleging the line of intent may not af-
feet the moral culpa bility of the re-
spondent, 1T certainly, does affect his
legal status.
/ IF the respondent used the money
as 1t was intended 1t should be used
by the donors he was not guilty OF
larceny, and could not be convicted By
a petit jury. Even the undsclosed in
| tention of the donor negatives the idea
OF larceny and would prevent his con-
! viction, however great might be his
moral culpablity.'
| The members of the court voted 40 to
| 2 to sustain the ruling of Judge Cul-
| len.
Judge Cullen then continued his tes-
timony. He said he had talked with
Potter about helping the governor per-
| sonally. sr
( eDid YOU. not tell him. asked Judge
I
suit of clothes?''
We'll, If I did it was in a joke
| answered witness. sE
| "Well did you not tell him he need
ed a new. suit of clothes and a new
hat for his campaign upstate?'
! Yes, ] said something like that"
| s"You wanted to help him out with
| his personal expenses, did you not?"
-s- No Restrictions on Gift
| LAS / said yesterday. l. did not place
any restrictions on the use of tn,
money" answered witness. 81 believed
| that Sulzer did not have cent abou
the time he was entering his cam
paign"
| Ibid, you know he had $4,000 o,
| $4,000 in New York banks when he
appointed Gompers labor commission
er?' asked Stanchfield.
Mr.. Marshall was on his feet in ar
| instant with. an objection that this
question was Insulting and undigni-
fled in this august presence as the jul
! dfcia1 had reversed this"
/ Stanchffeld and Marshall then goi
into controversy which was closed by
| the admonition of the presiding judge
| TO cease this argument, gentlemen
| and proceed to the relevant business OF
| the tribunal"
| Mr.. Stanchfield asked if Judge Con-
lion really; knew of Suffers financial
4 condition and received negative an
swer.
.But Sulzer wore. the same style OF
clothes for about 25 years. did he not?
asked Stanchfield
i es"He did not appear to have growr
suddenly poor did he, which. might
have led you to the belief that he didn'l
have a cent?
apparently there was no change IL
his looks in the past 25 years." the
answer came He wore the same
style hat all the time" .ts
! Daniel NJ Brady, the next witness, de-
clared he had destroyed both the CHECK
Sulzer's roll.
why did you destroy these?" asked
Senator Bussey quickly.
Because l realized the entire matter
was perpetual fight between two fac
tions I was friendly to both sides, and
| did not want to get mixed in the fight
I thought that 20 destroy the check and
get rid of. it. But I found out my mis-
take, as L have lost a great deal OF
time from my business as a result"
! He said he destroyed the check and
stub after he heard of the governors
| impeachment.
! In answer to query from Judge Her
rick. Mr.. Brady said that he had never
Regarded Sulzer as anything else thar
| a poor fellow
Doolin Gave $1,000
John r. Doolin of New York, the mex
Witness told the court of meeting tn,
| governor October 10 and giving him {
| $1,000 check
II told him he needed help, said th'
witness. "I handed him the check. HI
thanked me-
Mr.. Stanchfield asked Doolin if he hat