Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1913-09-26

didate entered on campaign, it oc-
casioned expense, is that so?"
Yes was the reply,
rI wanted to relieve him of any per
sonal expenses incurred in connection
with the campaign or whatever ex-
pense might come up the witness
volunteered.
YOU did have in mind expenses in
connection with the campaign didn't
your"
"Yes, and anything else"
Would you have contributed to
him if he had not been a candidate
for Officer"
1T is improper for me to say at
this time"
AT whose instance, if any ones,
did you make this check payable to
cash'?" asked Judge Bartlett.
The witness hesitated several sec
ends and then said:
4 cannot tell positively, but
think it was at Mr. Suffers sugges-
ton"
do you remember what he said
to you on that subject?"
q asked him how the check was
to be made out
What did he say?"
He said that it was after banking
hours and that he wanted to leave on
his trip that night"
Did he explain how the making
out Of the check to cash would facil-
itate its being cashed after banking
hours?"
4 don't recall that anything was
said on the subject"
William B. Houghton, paying teller
of the Colonial branch of the Equita-
BILE Trust Company of New York, who
followed Croker, testified that Colwell
had presented the Croker check to
him for payment on October 81.
Houghton said he had known Col
well for years and had been a mem
bers of his Sunday school class, At
this point adjournment was taken un
til Monday
At the opening of today's session
of the Sulzer trial. Attorney Kressel
introduced in evidence letters written
last fall by Sulzer to William J. Elias
and William Hoffman, brewers, who
contributed to the fund turned over
to Sulzer by former Senator stadler,
Judge Lewis Conlon Of New York.
the first witness, told of handing Sui
zer $1OO check from Daniel NJ.
Brady.
In the cross-examination, Judge p.
Cady Herrick questioned him as to a
conversation with Mark NJ. Potter,
who the witness testified yesterday
had given check for Sulzer.
"Did you have any conversation
concerning Mr. suIzer's financial CON
dition?"
Objection to this question that it
was not competent, was entered by
Mr.. stanchfield and was overruled by
Presiding Judge Cullen, who gave a
lengthy opinion as to the admissabil-
ity of testimony, tending to show whe-
ther it was the intention Of contribu-
tors that the money could be used
for private purposes or only to meet
campaign expenses.
'Tn my opinion" he said "the re
spondent has the right to introduce
evidence concerning the intent Of the
donors. Here we are considering a
charge of larceny, and while testimo.
ny alleging the line of intent may not
affect the moral culpability Of the re.
spndent, it 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 lar
ceny and will prevent his conviction
however great might be his moral cul
pability."
The members Of the court voted 49
to 2 to sustain the ruling Of Judge
Cullen. Judge Conlon then read his
testimony He said he had talked
with, Potter about helping out the gov
ernor.
~You wanted to help him out with
his personal expenses, didn't you"
asked Herrick.
"As I said yesterday didn't place
any restrictions on the use of the
money. I believed that Sulzer did not
I 4.