The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-03-31

states attorney was making motions
to the witness so hat he would
answer the questions to the advant-
age of the state. He said that it had
been noticed by him and others in
the courtroom. The court, however
had not noticed this.
The alleged phone conversations
with Mahon were then referred to.
Objection was made, but overruled.
Sullivan stated that the phones were
in the Elton law office and hat a
connection was made so hat the
conversation could be taken down in
shorthand.
In the first conversation Mahon
was asked to come DOWN and see him
the next day, but did not do so. The
second conversation as said to have
taken place in the city engineers Of
flee, where there are said to be two
phones on the same line.
Sullivan was then asked if he
knew that Stevens came to Bangs
when he was drunk. Sullivan stated
that he did not know that Stevens
was drunk. When asked If he had
not been told that Stevens had seen
him take some papers from him
(Stevens), Sullivan claimed thai he
knew nothing about the affair. He
stated that he could not recall what
he a told to Stevens at the Col
umbia.
No Money to Holien.
did you tell Stevens that you had
paid Holien $1,000?" the counsel
queried. Sullivan denied that he had
ever paid Holien any money "The
letter which you read to Mahon and
Bangs was not addressed to Bangs.
was it," the witness was asked. He
replied that 1t was addressed to some
Larimore people.
Sullivan stated that by the letter
he was made the agent of Bruyere
and Stevens to collect about $4,000.
In the second phone conversation
that Sullivan claims to have had
with Mahon, he told him that it was
something important in regards to
the Cooper case. He was told to
write him or see him (Mahon) as
"phones were liable to leak" Sulli-
van claims that he read the letter
part way through, but that Mahon
protested at its being read over the
phone and shut off. Efforts to get
Mahon on the line again proved of
no avail, Sullivan stated.
When asked If Bangs and Mahon
refused to see him, Sullivan said that
they were willing to have him come
to meet them in a private place. but
would not come to see him.
Sullivan Knows Dienan.
Sullivan stated that he did not re-
fer to the Cooper case directly in his
talk with Bangs, but intimated as
much so that the attorney would
know what he referred to. He stated
that he did not suppose that the de-
PENDANTS knew Of the detectives who
had taken part In the case. Sullivan
that he went to Portland on
Jan. 16 and to the Hotel Multanomah.
He then went to the Oxford cafe and
admitted that he may have been
directed to the Imperial hotel by the
whom he knew ais Dig
nan. %
Went West on Case.
He admitted that he was in the
west on this a $ to get evidence. He
denied that he made the Oxford ho-
tel bar his daily hangout, as had
been alleged.
The states attorney made objection
to all questions on the events that
had transpired in Portland, stating
they had no bearing on the cases
Ct the defendants, Tracy Bangs and
Mahon. Mr.. Bangs explained that he
Ta bringing II these facts to chow
character Of the complainant. An
to the query Of: ibid you
know McGruder" (the man who 1t lis
said impersonated Cooper in the ho-
tel roonl), was made.
Manufactured Evidence.
Mr.. Bangs then stated: ''This is
! manufactured case, and part of the
evidence was manufactured out in
Oregon Sullivan denied knowing
acGruder. denied meeting a painter
ord saloon, and denied that he had
ssked such or any other person, with |