Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-03-04
STATE APPEARS TO BE MAKING
STRONG CASE AGAINST
ENGINEER GARDNER.
MADE PROFIT ON
WAGES OF ASSISTANTS
Court Overrules Objections Of Defense
to Testimony Relating to Outside
Work-State's Evidence Nearly All
In-Interest in Trial at Clarion In
creasine-Outiine of Testimony.

Special to Times Republican.
Clarion, March 4.--The second day OF
VS.. S. Is. Gardner opened by the state
putting on the witness stand several
persons who were employed by the de-
PENDANT while acting in the capacity
of county engineer. George Horton, the
first witness. student civil engineer,
testified that he worked under the de-
PENDANT from April / to Aug. I, 1913 at
the rate of $1.75 per day, doing work
on drainage projects ana city paving
at Eldorsl and Iowa Falls.
At this point the defense filed OBJ
jectiens to questions relating to work
performed on any proposition other
than that pertaining to drainage. and
the court dismissed the jury during
argument by counsel, touching the law
with reference to the admissibility of
evidence not directly connected with
the facts at issue. The Judge in his
ruling sustained the copteption of
states counsel that facts relating to
any work performed by the witness
gineer We're permissible. The state here
scored its first point
The state made plain its intent to
show that a system existed between
the board of supervisors ard the de-
PENDANT for the filing and allowing of
claims which made it possible for bills
and the witness continued stating that
h Mt a.
ceiving more from the county from his
dor than he was paid. ard that de-
PENDANT was charging the county more
than he paid his men. He had never
seen the contract said to exist between
the board and the detendlnt but I'M
derstood that such : plan existing be-
tween the board and the defendant was
general knowledge. He had seen a
printed list on. the office walls which
stated the amounts the county paid
the defendant for his hep. but had
never talked with defendant about it.
Drew Less Than County Allowed.
e Chamberlain was the next witness
called He worked under the defend
ant as assistant engineer for two
months at $50 per month Following
that he received $3.50 per day for a
time and then 1915 per day. This was
in 1913 He testified that he did some
private work for defendant during that
time; did not know that his amount
for private work was sent in as a
county expense. On cross eXamira-
ton witness said he knew that the de-
PENDANT made a larger bill to the coun-
ty for his work than he was paid; that
ne knew the defendant made a charge
of So day to the county when he
only received $3.50 a day.
T. Edwards, assistant engineer, was
in the employ of defendant at times
in 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913. receiving
from s115 to SO per day: did county
and city work, but did not keep sep
arate record of same nor the hours
of labor done daily.
I'd to this stage of the trial interro-
cations by the state indicates that 1t
i is the states theory thai the defend
ant paid his helpers by the day re-
CARELESS of the number OF hours of
! la Dor performed and that he filed his
| bill with the county IN the basis of an
eight-hour day; also that private work
! done by his helpers was charged by
! him to county work.
! Defense Excuses System.
! Interrogations by defendants counsel
! indicates that the defense takes the
view that as defendant was in the
county's employ on a contract. which
specifically specified the daily wage OF
! himself and helpers, it was irrelevant
what daily wage he personally paid
| his helpers.
| r. D. Brady assistant engineer, tes-
titled that he was employed by defend
ant at the rate of $3.50 to 1925 per
day. He did not know of any agree
ment between defendant and the board
| Of supervisors as to the per diem al
! lowance the defendant was to receive
| for his helpers.
| jackson Important Witness.
! J. G. Jackson, an eX-member anC
cha l1nan of the board of supervisors
| was an important witness during the
afternoon. He testified that while
| chairman of the board he Endorsed GER
tain bills of the defendants offered In
| evidence and which were approved by
the board: that at the time said bills
were allowed by the board and in.
! dorsed by him as chairman he did no
! know the amounts of said bills were
! in excess of the amounts actually pait
| by the defendant to the men he EN-
| ployed Had he known that such wa:
the case he would not have Endorsed
the bills, but they received his indorse
ment because he believed they repre-
scented the actual amounts paid out b.
the defendant.
| Editor Witness.
Ira Nichols. editor of the Hardin
4 County Citizen, was the next witness
He identified two letters and content
which he had received from defendan
and which were placed in evi
| dence. Had he, as a citizen, known o
an agreement whereby the defendan
was receiving from the county an ex