Weekly journal-miner., 1914-09-23

! on the roads for the money paid out by the county.
 The county attorney objected to such a conclusion and termed it a alback The court sustained the objection Of the county attorney.
 Admits Boards Evidence
 At the opening of court Judge Cooper ruled that evidence of the board of supervisors. as a board, concerning board proceedings, could be heard and the examination oi Chairman William Stephens. of the board of supervisors. was resumed. County Attorney O'Sullivan asked him whether there had been a spc- cial meeting of the board some time during 1912 when Clark was present. MT. Stephens replied that there had been such session and he confined the date of the session to latitude of three months, not recalling the exact day.
 The defense offered strenuous ob- jection to the introduction of evil dence based upon such wide lati- tude of dates, contending that un- der such conditions it could not offer any contradictory evidence. Attor- ney Clark commenced to substan- tiate his conclusions by the reading of authorities, when Assistant Coun- ty Attorney Joseph H. Morgan arose and objected to the delay upon the ground that the presiding judge had already ruled upon this point, and the objection was sustained.
 What was said at this meeting:" asked the county attorney.
 The witness replied that Clark had been told to discontinue charging of wages for his cooks to the coun- ty and that the defendant had re- piled that they ought to allow such payment because he wasn't making any money on the enterprise. From that date on, until last June Mir. Stephens was under the impression | that Mir. Clark had discontinued the practice Of charging the county with the salary of his cooks. Mir. Steph- ems said that later, when Mir. Clark again complained he was losing money, he (Stephens) replied that whenever Clark saw fit, the county would take the boarding house en- terprise off his hands.
 Clark was first called to task, Mir. Stephens said, for charging the coun- ty with his cooks salaries three months after the present board went into office. The defense, on this point, maintained that the old board of supervisors had always allowed the payment of such warrants.
 In an effort to show that Clarl, mad been losing money upon his boarding house enterprise even though he did charge the county for his cooks services, Attorney Anderson of the defense asked Mir. Stephens whether the county was conducting the camps on its own hook at present. The witness ad- mitted that such was the case and that it was costing the county be- tween eighty-fve and ninety cents day to feed man, while $1 a day is charged for board, leaving sur plus of about ten per cent.
 During the course of cross-exami- nation, the defense produced a road warrant for S24 drawn to the credit of William Stephens. Prior to this, however, Mir. Stephens was asked if he had ever performed any work upon the road in 1912 when the war rant was made out. He replied that he had not, and realizing the pur- port of the question, he hotly re torted when asked to explain, that the warrant was assigned to him by J. J. Sullivan.
 The defense also cndeavorcd to bring out some evidence regarding the use of the county auto through Mir. Stephens. Stephens declared that the county had paid So day to Clark when the latter drove his own car upon county business. The cost of repairs to the machine at that time, which the county paid, averaged SIPS a month. When the county purchased its own machine, the cost of repair averaged over S400 a month.
 Heap on Stand.
 Supervisor Harry w. Heap fol lowed Mir. Stephens on the stand, and his testimony was principally in corroboration of the evidence of Mir. Stephens. MT. Heap admitted, on cross-examination, that the equip mcnt now being operated by the county was the property of Clark; that