Weekly journal-miner., 1914-09-23
CLARK HAS SAY IN COURT.
(From Sundays Daily.)

tTTOm SunQdy Odlly.J
 The feature of the Clark trial yes terday was the evidence of the de- :endant himself. who was on the stand at the time court adjourned. 4:30 D. m., until Monday morning. At the time of adjournment the de- fense had finished its questioning of the witness and County Attorney O'Sullivan was in the midst of a rigid oss-examination which will be continued and finished Monday. Clark was on the stand all Of two and onc-half hours. during which time he seemed to evidence no ex- citement and to answer questions propounded without much hesitation or fear. The principal part of the testimony consisted in the identiica- ton by the defendant of the different road warrants and checks which had been used in making payments of money from the county treasury to those who are alleged. in this par ticular case, to have been paid by the county for work performed for Mir. Clark personally.
 Indications at the conclusion of the session were that the case would go to the jury about Tuesday. as it is thought the examination of Clark will be concluded carly to- morrow morning. The defense has subpoenaed an array Of character witnesses. but whether all of these will be used is an uncertainty even with the attorneys. Should they do so. however. the trial could not end Tuesday.
 Says Had Authority.
 On direct examination, the de- fendant proved valuable witness to his side LeRoy Anderson. of the defense conducted the examination. Clark told his story in detail. and gave his version of the alleged graft. He testified that the board had given him authority to build the roads in the most economical and best manner possible and declared that among his privileges was the hiring and discharging of men to suit his pleasure.
 From his testimony the record of the trial will show that the board of supervisors had practically turn ed over the handling of the county road fund to the defendant It was shown that checks for work on road' had at different intervals been given by Clark to Chairman William Stephens, Supervisor Alonzo Mason, Clerk of the Court Patrick Farley and County Attorney F. w. O'Sulli- van. at the request of employees, to cover the amount of wages due. This evidence was evidently intended to show the loose manner in which the road fund was handled and to bring out the point that the defendant was acting in good faith at all things. In fact the attorneys for the defense , constantly applied the term of good faith" during the course of the ex- animation of their client. and at one time the counsel for the state and | defense engaged in verbal contro- versy regarding the issues of the case Attorney Anderson declared that if the defense proved that Clark had acted in good faith,' then no crime had been committed against the county. On the other hand, County Attorney O'Sullivan did not profess any particular liking to the defnation the defense seemed de- sirious of giving the words good faith" The county attorney insist ed that the question at issue was, did Clark present fraudu lent claim for payment by the coun- ty or did he not:"
 The term good faith" was the direct result of an effort by the defense to prove that while the county may have been ovcrchargcd few dollars in Frank Clinesmith's pay, that at the same time the county was not loser thereby. The defense had produced Clarence Eckert to show that while he was being paid out of Clark's own pock ct for working at a mine nearby he was also engaged on the road to reciprocate for the time Clinesmith was worked in the mine at county expense. The county attorney didn't like this arrangement. He main tained that if the county owed Eek ert any money for services there was a proper way defined for him to be paid.
 Clark was asked questions while on the stand of a rebuttal nature with reference to the documentary