Arizona republican., 1916-10-26

business agent. Sam J. Williams of | Galveston, was sworn in as a witness, | but after he had stated that he was | a fourth degree member of the or ganization ard familiar with the | oath taken, the state objected.
 Attorneys, Mart Royston and James | B. Stubbs, contented that the oath | should be admitted as evidence as . refuting the oath circulated by Black, | which they said was false and scur rilus." and as showing the motive of i Copeland in going to Black to pro- | test against another lecture. Judge Briggs upheld "at this time. however. the consention of attorneys for the state that no ground had been 1 laid for the introduction of the oath. ] The defense then summoned two l witnesses who attended the lecture l given by Vim. Black in Marshall on the night proceeding the shooting. Henry Holcomb of Marshall, said Black declared the convents were more or less prisons and ought to have government inspection. The | lecturer. he added, also made sen i sational statements about the re- | lations of nuns and priests and de- clared he would rather see his wife or mother dead than in a convent. 1 Did he make a wholesale denunci- ation of the nuns?" asked Attorney ! ! Yes nearly all," replied the wit ness.
 l Walter Scott gave testimony simi- | l1r to Holcombs's He said that | Black declared during his address that he had been shot several times l had been in a hospital several times and expected that he would die in the cause"
 The state objected when the de- ! len fn mi taken at Louisa. Lawerence county, Kentucky. detailing Blacks entrance into and departure from the Masonic 1 order It claimed the deposition was intended to injure Blacks character. The objection was sustained by Judge Briggs at this time.
 l The defense had contended that the deposition was admissible as showing that Black was unreliable and that ! statements made by him could not be believed
 Just before court adjourned, At
 torney Stub3s produced the judge
 Ecnt of the district court of Harrison
 county acquitting Harry Vim and Frank O'Leary of Marshall in eonnec-
 ton with killinA of Black
 Attorney Royston for the defense.
 argued that the whole trend of the
 states case had shown a purpose to
 charge conspiracy on the part of the
 men who went to Blacks room to
 kill him. He said that the fact that
 two men had been acquitted would
 bear on any charge of conspiracy
 against other men being tried or to
 be tried.
 The state argued that the action of
 another jury should not oe allowed 10
 influence the action of the present
 jury Judge Briggs adjourned court
 until morning. when he said he would
 announce his decision
 The defense used one of the states witnesses as a character witness of
 Copeland. He was John W. Herndon.
 of Marshall an undertaken who took
 charge of Blacks body after the
 shooting
 How long have you known Cope land2"
 Twenty or twenty-five years" said
 Herndon
 What is his reputation for peace
 and honestly"
 Good"
 Herndon said he was a protestant. At the opening of the court this ] afternoon. Judge Briggs issued the following statement:
 "On behalf of one of the news 1 papers, counsel for such newspaper { had invited the courts attention to the attitude assumed by if that the r court has no power to punish for con- ? tempt any newspaper violating the
 courts order entered on yesterday in publishing the testimony in any ed- l ton of any such newspaper circu-
 lating in Galveston county. asserting in such communication further, that il 1 ! request on the part of the court had been mada of the press not to publish Q such testimony 1t was believed by 1 such counsel that the request would 7 have been observed
 The court has never sought tC
 ahridge the constitutional guarantet
 Of the freedom of the press but un- ' dOubtedly feels it has both the power
 under the law of the state and that i ~ is proper to make the order that i T did in his proceeding. The question T of whether the court has power t' T punish for contempt for disobedeinc'
 of such order is not before the cour
 at this time
 e The courts order was framed witt Secific reference to the libel statut'
 of the state and what may be con r. sidered privileged matter thereunder If The letter in question seems to ad l. init the propriety of the effort of tn l. court to prevent unusual publicit, e being given the proceedings in thi ,r case, but refuses to have the news l. papers for which he is counsel placei .- Tn the attitude or ODSerNlnR man e datory order of the court. This cour
 assumes that it is known that tn d court has made no threat of con g tempt proceedings and that by placin ,3 the limitation upon it's order that T. did on yesterday, and only prohi :, biting the publication in editions circ [" ulating in this county, that the cour
 was not even denying to the pres 'l the rights confered under the libt
 statute as to privileged matter, ex ie ccpt in so far as Galveston county le concerned; and in view of that limi St tation the court feels that it was a le unmistakable indication to the pres l. that it desired it to refrain from pub ye fishing the evidence in this case r. Galveston county
 it "If the view should be further en III tertained or taken by the press tha ly it will decline to respect the wishe
 of the court. the court will fe.
 obliged 10 remove the limitation a
 privileged matter anywhere in th
 section of the state or even the stat