Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-03-06


Special. to Times Republican.
Clarion, March 6.-The case against
County Engineer Gardner. Of Hardin
county. on trial under indictments
charging padding Of his payrolls, came
to a sudden termination here last night,
when Judge J. NJ. Wright sustained a
motion to direct the jury to return a
verdict for defendant, Gardner. The
court held in effect that while graft had
been shown by the evidence. the testi-
mony did not sustain the charge in the
Indictment, and that conspiracy should
have been alleged.
The pending cases against the mem
bers Of the board Of supervisors were
at once continued until the next term
of court. 1t may be necessary for the
state to secure new indictments in this
case, and if Gardner is retired, new
indictments will be necessary to con-
form to the rulings Of the court.
No Testimony For Defense.
Judge Birdsan on behalf of the de-
tense moved the court To-. a directed
verdict for the defense. This procedure
was somewhat expected. as the de-
Tense had. skillfully and stubbornly
fought every move made in the pro-
ceding of the trial. Birdsall's motion
was to the effect that as the state
had failed to sustain and prove tho
allegations set out in the Indictment
the court instruct the jury to enter
a verdict for the defendant. Judge
Birdsall argued his motion and Judge
Lee resisted the motion on behalf Of
the state. In Judge Birdsalrs argu-
Eents he admitted that much evidence
had been submitted which would sub
stantiate conspiracy charge, but that
il utterly failed to show the truth Of
the charge alleged in the indictment.
Judge Lee put 1t stronger, stating that
evidence submitted would prove con-
spiracy.
AT the conclusion Of argument @the
court sustained tho motion. stating that
he was satisfied that HarIlfn county
had been subjected 30 qnrEh graft in
its road and drainage matters. as the
evidence indicated. but that the state
had failed to prove the allegations
upon which the indictments was pre-
dicated. and he directed a verdict for
the defense.
Supervisors az Witnesses.
The most exciting and important
session If the Hardin county Gardner
case, started the third day Of the trial.
The first witness called was n. L.
Webster, member Of the board Of
supervisors and one Of the defendants
in the case Of Hardin county against
81 l><>o - ~
most prominent witness and had
grilling experience on the witness
stand until noon. Attic the plaintiffs
witness, his evidence. which was vigor-s
Ously objected to in both direct and
cross examination, developed facts Of
vital importance to both sides Of the
case. On direct examination, witness
testified with reference I'd the allow
ance and endorsement Of a large num-
Der Of bills by the board presented by
he did not know that the amounts of
said bills were from 20 to so per cent
more than the defendant had paid for
the labor represented in said bills:
that had he known such to be the fact
he would not have approved of and
voted for the payment Of said bills;
the bills as to their correctness and
did not know that the amounts there
in were in excess Of the amounts paid
by the defendant for the labor per-
formed: that had he known said
amounts allowed were in excess of
amounts paid by defendant he would
not have given them his approval. One
bill. exhibit No. "a, he could not say
that he had voted on. but was present
at the meeting that passed the bill.
Marks on Stand.
Charles Marks, member of the board
and another OF the defendants in the
case Hardin county vs. the supervisors,
was called to give testimony on exhibit
No. "a, which bore his signature as
chairman. He testified that the bill
passed by the board on the date shown,
did not seem to be o. KID, but he sup
posed it was allowed. He was not
Cross examined.
Hssiop Tsstifiss.
George Heslop, chairman Of board
In 1914, was the next witness He testi-
fled that he approved and endorsed
bills filed by defendant. He did not
know that amount Of said bills was
in excess Of amounts the defendant
paid to helpers, as he did not know
how much per day the defendant paid
his help. He had nothing to do with
any arrangement made by the board
with the defendant as to the amount
Of wages per day he was to receive for
his helpers. He never knew that de-
PENDANT was charging a bonus on mis-
helpers amounts until his report was
filed. He did not know that defendant
was charging IS per day for his auto
mobile driver. On cross examination
he said an arrangement by resolution
was passed by the board in March,
1913. to allow defendant Is per day for
self. IS per day for an assistant, nndi
1880 per day for helpers. but by neg
lect was not placed on record until a
later date by an amendment resolu-
ton. He did mot know that the de-
PENDANT had made any faee returns
or over charges to the board. It made
no difference to him IL defendant paid
t2 per day, IS per. day or 81 for in
strument men as long as he charged
he county only IS per day: the ar
WAS made with defendant
hefnrs th- witness went on the board.
80 ys,.F.
. q es555 ~ n