The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1913-09-27

conversation he had with Mark M.
Potter, who the witness testified yes
terday had given him a check for
Sulzer
Did you have any conversation
concerning Mr.. Suffers financial con-
dition?"
Objection that this question was not
competent was entered by Mr.. Stanch-
field and was overruled by Presiding
Judge Cullen, who gave a lengthy
opinion as to the admissability of tes-
timony tending to show whether it
was the intention of contributors that
the money could be used for private
purposes or only to meet campaign
expenses.
I'm my opinion" he said, "the re-
spondent had the right to introduce
evidence concerning the intent of
donors. Here we are considering a
charge of larceny and while testimony
alleging the line of intent may not
affect the moral culpa ability of the re-
spondert 1t certainly does affect his
legal status. If the respondent used
the money as it was intended it should
be used by the donors, he was not
guilty of larceny and could not be
convicted by a petit jury. Even the
undisclosed intention of the donor
negatives the idea of larceny and
would prevent his conviction, however
great mighty be his moral culpa-
bility."
The members of the court voted 40
to to sustain the ruling of Judge
Cullen
TESTIMONY CONTINUED.
Judge Conlon then continued his
testimony. He said he had talked
with Potter about helping out the
governor.
Didn't you tell him." asked Judge
Herrick, that he ought to have a new
suit of clothes?"
"Well, if did it was in a joke the
witness replied.
well, didn't you tell him that he
needed a new suit of clothes and a
new hat for his campaign up the
state?"
Eyes, I said something like that
you wanted to help him out with
his personal expenses, didn't your"
GAS I said yesterday, 1 didn't place
any restrictions on the use of the
money. 1 believed that Sulzer didn't
have a cent about the time he was
entering his campaign"
Did you know he had $4,000 or
$50, 900 in New York banks ?" asked
Mr.. Stanchfield.
Mr. Marshall was on his feet in an
instant with an objection that this
question was insulting and undfgni-
fed in this presence"
There followed then a heated con-
troversy between Mr.. Stanchfield and
Mr.. Marshall, whoCh was closed by the
admonition of the presiding judge to
cease this argument, gentlemen, and
- ~
Mr.. Stanchfield asked if Judge Con-
Ian really knew of Suffers financial
condition and received a negative an
swer
But Sulzer wore the same style of
clothes for about twenty-five years,
did he not?" Stanchf1eld asked. He
didn't appear to have grown suddenly
poor, did he, which might have led you
TO the belief that he didn't have
cent?"
There apparently was no change in
his appearance in the past twenty five
years." was the reply. He wore the
same style hat all that time"
Daniel NJ. Brady, the next witness.
declared he had destroyed both the
check and stub, which he had con-
tributed to Sulzer.
why did you destroy them asked
Because l realized the entire mat
ter was a fight between two factions.
1 was friendly to both sides and I
didn't want to get mixed up in it. 1
thought that to destroy the check and
the stub would be a pretty good way
to get out of it. But 1 found out my
mistake, as I have lost a great deal
of time from my business as a result"
He destroyed the check and stub,
he said, after he heard of the gov
errors impeachm
In reply TO a query from Judge Her
rick. Mr.. Brady said he never had
regarded Sulzer as anything else than
a poor man."
John 7. Dooling of New York, told
of meeting the governor October Is
and giving him a 81 900 check.
Il told him that I understood he
needed help. I handed him the check.
He thanked me"
Mr.. Stanchfield asked Dooling if he