Weekly journal-miner., 1915-05-05
CLARK CROSS-EXAM-
 INED BY O'SULLIVAN
(From Saturdays Dally.)

l (From SaturQaYs DaiIy.) D. NJ. Clark, on trial on a charge of having defrauded the couI.ty, or his pay rolls during the period that he was road superintendent and whose case will be given to the jury some time today, was placed on the stand at his trial yesterday and in cross examination by County Attor- ney O'Sullivan, admitted part of the evidence brought out by the prosecu ton, after which both the prosecu' ton and defense rested and argu' ment started before the jury. Deputy County Attorney Morgan was first and he was followed by Attorney Clark for the defense This morning Attorney Anderson and County Attor- ney O'Sullivan will address the jury, after which the jury will be instruct cd and locked up to deliberate upon a verdict.
 Clark was first questioned in regard to the Slate creek road work, some of the questions being as follows:
 Q.-Do you remember having talked with Martin F7edericks in front of Dillon's cigar store, in September, 1913, in regard to him working on the Slate creek road
 Al do not recall it exactly, but l did hire him.
 Q.-Do you remember hiring Frank Clinesmith?
 A.-Yes.
 Clark, to question put to him by O'Sullivan, was not sure whether Clinesmith had indorsed his road certificate in his presence or not. Clark said, that his foreman on the Slate creek road had given him the lime. This was in regard to the road certificate Clinesmith had testified :hat he was paid with after working six days on the road and the rest ot he time in Clark's mine, all of which rad been charged to the county.
 Cross-examination also brought put, that the men working in the nine and on the road were boarded t Clark's mine camp for $l per day
 nd that Mrs. H. Eckert, did the cooking and was paid $50 per month or both by the county. In payment ;or one of her road certificates which
 he had signed T. Eckert, Clark ad- nitted having paid her with check made out to Mrs. H. Eckert. When shown the road certificate with the 'rs." erased after the NJ in Mrs. H. lckert, Clark declared, that he did ,ot know who did it or how it came
 bout.
 In the spring of 1912, according to he evidence and Clark's cross-exam- nation, Tom Sanders and Mrs. Kel- um, both cooks, received money on oad certificates on the county with ,ook written after their name. This vas before the time that Clark had alked with the board in regard to lis losses on cooks. On the road certificates issued to Mrs. H. Eckert, which was after his talk with the board, the word cook did not appear. Clark testified in reply to O'Sullivan's question as to why he placed N. C.l Williams and his wife, a cook OH the same road certificate under the hus- bands name was, that the road work was across a canyon from the camp nd that to save time, he placed them
 oth on the one certificate under the ne name and let Williams indorsc it.
 A road certificate made out to Jeff (leghorne, a cook, for $70 and a S24 heck in payment was shown to Clark nd he was asked to explain. He aid that out of that certificate $24 rad been held out for board for "A 1 lays and the rest had been paid in ash. O'Sullivan said: You heard 1 Cleghorne's testimony in which he aid, he never received any cash from either you or Kellum?" Clark said that he had heard it, but did not think was responsible
 Clark was then cross-examined | about his salary for the last seven | of 1914 and O'Sullivan said: Do you know why you did not -c- ccivc it?" Clark answered: No" Well, the reason is that the State is | now suing you for $4,Oo2.S6, and that's the reason why" said O'Sullivan. The defense objected to this being put be- fore the jury and in return the county attorney said that the suit was being ! put before the jury to show them why Clarks salary was being with leld
 Judge Cooper ruled in favor of the but instructed the jury 70 pay no attention to anything the attorneys said and to only base their inal verdict on the testimony given rom the witness chair. In regard to