Weekly journal-miner., 1915-05-05
MOTION OF CLARK
 FOR JUDGMENT DENIED
(From Thursdays Daily.)

(From Thursdays Oafly.)
 In the trial of D. M. Clark yester day, his attorneys, Anderson & Lam son, and Clark & Clark, made two motions, one to strikt out all evidence introduced by the State and the other for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. Both were over-ruled by Judge Cooper.
 The first was based on the grounds that the board of supervisors is not authorized by the State of Arizona to pay demands of anyone excepting the person to whom they are made out. The second ayers that the facts al legged in the information against Clark are insufficient to constitute public offense. These motions were made after the prosecution had finished placing witnesses on the stand and had rested.
 The carly part of the trial yester' day was taken up by an argument be- tween counsel as to whether testi- mony given at the other trial by MT. and Mrs. N. C. Williams, which the prosecution attempted to place be- for the jury in written form because both of the witnesses are out of the jurisdiction of the court at this time and could not be obtained to testify, would be allowed to be read to the jury. After lively discussion during which the jury was excused, Judge Cooper finally ruled that their testi- mony in written form would be ad- mitted.
 N. C. Williams testimony, which was then read to the jury, was in a general way like that of the majority of the witnesses for the State, he hav- ing worked for Clark and been paid by him with road certificates which he indorsed in blank and received a check in return. One of the road certificates which he signed shows hat he earned $70, but he said on this road certificate he had only re ceived $250 and two tax receipts valued at $.
 In cross-examination of Williams at the former trial he testified that his wife went to work as a cook for Clark at the Three Mile House, the same time that he worked on the road and for this she got g per day md board. Mrs. Williams, it appears from his testimony, received her check on the road certificate that he indorsed for $7O. Her check was for $2s.
 Mrs. Agnes Williams, his wife's testimony, was then read and accord ;ng to it she worked at the Three Mile House as cook while her hus- band was working on the county road. She said that she had been paid with check by Clark but did not have to sign any road certificate for it.
 Pete Castonguay testified that he had been hired by Clark in Prescott to work at the Hillside road camp as cook. He said that he cooked for about 2 men and was paid by Clark with check but did not have to sign road certificate.
 To testify i'll regard to his examin- ation of Clark's accounts, R. I, Bel cher, clerk of the board of supervis- ors was again placed on the stand. The defense objected but were over ruled by the court, Bclcher then tcs' tifying that in his examination he found that no road certificates had been made out to Tom Sanders ill the summer of 1912 between June and October and when Sanders was a cook for Clark. On cross-eXamina- ton, he said that Clark's accounts ran up to $4,OOO per month or $l5O,0OO during the time he was road super Iintendent
 Defense Begins Its Case.
 After this the defense commenced