Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-07-31
r. Falcoonnefs, MT. stratttoalnn, John Al
Davies and w. IS. Casselmanl on both
visits 10 the Palladium office.
Ne 1Aer in siaht..

The Witness testified that neither
On the first az the second visit was
there any beer in sight. nor any
drank, kKppapppen vas sitting at the.
Typewriter, and Tapa was telling hts
story. None Of the others talked to
hin, according to the witness. The
statement was read to Fapa when ii
was finished hut he did not sign II
there, gQing With Casselman to thha
home of Richard PenWardsn for this
puYpose. Withess stated he knew
nothing OF any check alleged to have
been given Tapa by Casselman. On
the witness testi
fed that. Tara asked him. II he would
set Into trouble by signing the aftr
davitp and he told him he would not
rs the statQa9snts were tNrue,
cAssstaan Testihss,
". 81 C~assAlpan testified, to praes
8hcally the same thing, AS to those
iMcsent at the paladiRM Office, and
as to the gOingsS and comings Of himr
self and others, He said that the
statement was read oyer to Tapa
when tlnishSd, and Tapa was asked II
there, was ANYTHING further He said
there VAS nothi,g further, Witness
drank NO beer, and saw none, he tea,
titled, He gave Stratton 4 check fos
SIS fer sasryices rendered. Tor adyers
Using and notices In his paper, but
save TEsGla no macy for Ngning, tho
affidavit, nor FOR any other reason.
In cross-examination Of Nj. Cassel,
man, conducted hy Atty. n. n Nc
ICurdy, the following statements were
made In response To Mr., McCurdy's
question as to Why the action was
started: A. I started tho action be.
cause 1 felt asgrieYed, G You did
Y to set even il vow; could? A Yes.
and | will set even, too before Il set
through and prooably with YOU INC
Curdyl. g. This il the spirit IN
which YOU arc conducting this pro
eeedA,s?? a, | ann conducting this
proceeding as complaining witness,
because | am aggrieseds q, And this
proceeding is based entirely upon the
Tapa affidavit, SO far as the prose.
cution is concerned A, Yes, sir.
q, Why didn't y0u3 take his acknoMl,
eagment? A, Because was q caAli,
date, for office aud did not care tO
get mixed UP, 9. You knew It was
to he used for campaign purposes?
|A. / didn't know. e. There was .
slaxpici0n in the back of Your mind,
and vow diaA't want Your name on IL!
"a, Possibly So
The witness pointed out several
statements in the sober AFFIDAVIT
he claimed were untrue, and stated
that he believed the affidavit had
done him untold injury and hurt his
REPUTATION in the eyes Of his friends,
He was asked to- nalne a concrete in,
stance in which, this had been the
case, but did not desc Asked later
If he thought he hAls lost social in.
tercourses BY reasoAs Of the affidavit,
witness replied that he thought he
had been despisedsbys his fellow citi-
zens. naming several ia whose esti
nation he believed he had suffered.
judging from their general demsanlolI
toward him.
On redirect examination witness
was asked: a. You stated on cross
examination that this persecution had
been brought by yoas foE the purpose
Of getting even. A did not make
any such statement and ii did
wish. to recall il: tn the purpose Of
|vigdicating is What meant
The testimony 0 Cs Al Stratton
|corrclcrateds that az the precediN2