The Sentinel=record., 1917-12-14
JIMMY REYNOLDS
 CHANGED EVIDENCE
SECOND CASE IN WHICH MAIN PROSECUTING WITNESS FUR
 WISHED SURPRISE
Testified Yesterday That Melvin Lockett Did Not Have Any Knowl. edge of His Daylight Robbertes About the City.

Jimmy Reynolds. self confessed daylight rohber,' and who had for merly appeared before the grand jury and there furnished testimony in which he implicated Melvin Lockett. local autoist, yesterday when f.ockett vas placed on trial. and when Key holds was called, testified that his former evidence had been false. and that Lockett had no knowledge of the rob3eries that he t(eynoldsl had committed about the city.
 The particular charge on which Lockett was to be tried was for aid ing and abetting the robbery of the home of Mir James A. Smith Key holds was brought back from the state penitentiary to testify to Locketts knowledge of that robbery. He went on the stand and testified that Lockett aid not know anything of that robbery and that he had left Lockett standing with his auto about the Como hotel until he went and pulled the job, and then he came back and he and Locllett went out to the Ouchita river swim ming. He said Locketts relation with Jim was merely that of a hired auto mobile man.
 The rule of surprise by which the state was caught was the second sen sation of the circuit court term, th first being when Jewell Canada de- pended on as states witness to prose cute Ely Magby for the killing of Wal lace Harrison, testified on the witness stand that Magby did not throw liar rison in the river
 Coincident with the two cases was that both were in progress of trial and the state had called their wit nesses to the stand before information that the testimony the state expected to develop would not be forthcoming.
 Judge NJ. S. Cobb instructed ths jury to bring in a verdict of acquittaI against Melvin Lockett, which re- leases him from any further rcspon- blDllLN III LHe Cdot.
 Part of the testimony that Deputy Prosecuting Attorney B. H. Randolph developed from witness Jimmy Rey- holds had to deal with visit that his attorney, Leo r. Mclaughlin, made to Little Rock 10 see him recently, and which was in part as follows
 e Do you remember an occasion some time in the past summer on or about the 25th day of July. 1917, Of two diamond rings taken from the residence of Mr. Jim Smith on the corner of Quapaw avenue and Market street?
 A. Yes, sir
 e Who took those rings, Jimmie
 A. did
 Q. Were you in any way connected with the defendant Melvin Lockett, at that time?
 A Only except that he was drlyina his car was all and l was hiring him for his car,
 Q. We'll how far from Mir Smiths residence?
 A About a block and half, l guess, about a block something like that
 e. Where did you go then?
 A. wont up to Mr. Smiths and got his things and came on back and went out to the river
 0. What, if anything was said be tween you, what arrangement was there between you and Lockett, if any at that time?
 A There wasn't any advancement at all. anything like that 1 don't think he knew where got that or nothing about that He didn't see the rings. I guess. until he saw them up there in court, if ever.
 e. Why was 1t you told Row Brown and myself down in the sheriffs office that you and Melvin Lockett went up there and you run the car in the alley and that you went around and he stood outside and you wont in there and got the rings
 A. That was before I made all of those false statements before l went to the jury.
 @. Who have you talked to since you have been over to the peniten- uary2
 A. We'll, nobody except Nr.-whai is his name?
 Q Mclaughlin?
 N2Laughlin
 Q. Do you know a fellow by the | name of Madden?
 A. Yes. sir.
 @. Did you and Mir Mclaughlin | and Mir Madden get together over there in the penitentiary and arrange l for statement to be made in this case?
 A. Yes, sir
 e. What inducements were offered you for making that statement Jim mie2
 A. There wasn't none.
 c. Why did you make a different statement to Madden and McIaugh- Is,f I1,.rtt4 -s4 |