Evening journal., 1916-04-04
BURRIS DEFENSE
HITS confession

3x6 inches
Eugene Hardesty. assistant court
stenographer. was then called and
while on the stand continued to take
notes. He testified that on September
II. 1915 he took notes of an exam
nation of Burns by the attorney
general.
Mr. Reinhardt objected to the tosti-
mony regarding the statements OF
Burris before the attorney general.
The question was asked as to when
the trolley company commenced its
part OF the work on the bridge. Mr.
Hardesty said his notes said the at
tOrney general had asked Burris when
the new bridge floor was put on. Wit
ness also said Burris had said the
lumber came from Hart. Burris took
up the matter with the Levy Court
and Mr.. Scott had told him he could
get carload of white oak from
Hart.
Burris said he got four carloads OF
white oak from Edward Hart and all
the lumber went into Washington
street bridge except one lot which
went to Eleventh street bridge
On the same occasion Burris made
statement of the discovery OF the
magnitude of the jon on this bridge
Burris said that as the Civic As
sOciation had been "howling" about
the bridge he took all the members
of the Levy Court over to look at the
bridge and found the condition OF
the structure so bad that he ordered
through Mr.. Scott the carload Of lum-
ber He said that although the cost
would be more than $4,000 he had
only 81 900 10 do the work. Witness
said that i'm the same examination
Burris said that before he got very
far with the work he found il would
cost more than $500
After Mr.. Hardesty had finished
reading his notes. Mr.. Reinhardt re-
marked that he never knew Of sucf
an omission, confession or whatever
II might be called. He felt he shoulC
be given a chance 10 see the full
statement that was made by Burri'
on that occasion. Attorney Genera
Wolcott objected to the counsel foi
the defense seeing his papers.
Mr. Reinhardt said that all hl
wanted was to see al that Burrii
is said 10 have stated
Attorney General WOlcott said hi
friend Mr.. Rolnhardt. could see wha
he had used in the case. but no more
In cross-eNamination. Mr. Hardest.
said Mr. Wolcott did not tell Burri
he was likely to be arrested.
c. Candy Hopkins was bnce NOR
recalled and was shown The state
ment Of the expenditures on III
bridge and said he prepared no othe
statement
William A. Scott. Levy Court Con
missioner. was called as the next wit
ness. He testified that he carried IN
message from Burris to Edward Han
regarding the purchase OF a carloa
Of white oak lumber for use on III
bridge. The State then rested
Mr.. Reinhardt obtained a recess
ten minutes while he consulted wit
County Engineer Wilson. Consuitiu
Engineer John F. Greiner and Willia
A. Heindle. superintendent Of the Wi
mington and Philadelphia Tractic
Company.
Defence Opens.
In opening for the defence. Mr. Ren
hardt said that at no time until q
work was well on. did Burris find no
much lumber was necessary. The
was nothing on the bridge. he said.
show that the repairs would cost mo-
than $500. Patchwork had been dOl
on the bridge for years. he said, al
when the Levy Court got into the wOl
they did not believe the probable co
would be more than $780,
Everett b. Hollngsworth, preside
of the Levy Court. was called and VIII
asked if repairs had been made contin
Il. Lvffltr. Affnrunrr I.nnnf
Wolcoit objected.
Mr.. Reahardt said what had COZ
out Of the attorney generals m0n
could not make a particular case
violation OF this statute. lie quoted
case in the New York courts in suppC
Of his contention.
Mr.. Reinhardt said the States tes
mOny is that One-third Of the brid
work was done before the Levy Cou
learned that more repairs were nece
sary. He said the additional wO
was done on the order OF the lie
Court.
Deputy Attorney General Chayt
argued that the particular case Nv
he surfacing Of the bridge He co
tended that the jury was the body
determine what was the "particul
case."
+ Chief Justice Pennewill and Jud
s Heisel asked several questions on {
point. whereupon Mr.. Reinhardt 81
he expected to go back to 1918. VIII
X Mr. Hollingsworth went into the cou
& Chief Justice Pennewill said I
81 court felt different on the question
IS the particular case" and the jury. 7
& the Levy Court. is to decide the qu,
q tion. Chief Justice Pennewill ask
|1 il the question was not known
ought to have known that the probal
cost Of the job would be more tn
s $500"
Mr. Reinhardt replied that it "
a patchwork job and that it was
IS late to advertise for bids for the wO
< when it became known that the C
dition OF the bridge was bad.
Mr. Reinhardt took the itemized
OF lumber for the bridge and fou
g. thereon several items for oak pla
~ nails furnished for the Washingi
n. street bridge in 1913. He followed
account TO April 2S. 1914, and $
that large quantities of materi
we're ordered. This is the kind