American Falls press. [volume] (American Falls, Idaho) 1907-1937, 1918-07-26

to WOrkmen on the house, but later aC- /
mitted the checks were not paid and /
v ere bad as he understood the term. |
admitted he did not know whether la
Dor liens and material liens had been |
filed on the house did not know
whether Baum had had to pay any
such liens or not Admitted he did not
complete the house, according to terms
OF contract introduced trouble was
over extras, but would not say what
they were or what Baum demanded
that the contract did not require.
Bearing on the conspiracy alleged
by defense, and tampering with wit
nesses alleged by prosecution, Ker-
cher admitted telling Haag in regard
to Spencer l.. Baird, that Baird had
told Kercher if he employed Baum to
defend him they (Bissell & Baum)
would put him away for good. His
exact language was The statement
was made that if | would hire o. r.
Baum to represent me in my case
that they (meaning Bissell < Baum
would get me in the penitentiary for
good because they have got it in for
me. That's the way the statement
was made"
Court adjourned until 800 Thurs
day morning
Court opened Thursday morning
with Kercher still under cross ex-
animation. Much trouble was exper-
fenced in getting positive answers
from him. He insisted on qualifying.
His testimony was filled with expires
sions: 1T was something like that.
Il can't remember, but l don't think
it was lust that way" Il may have
said so. but 1 don't remember He
would not say that a certain affidavit
signed by him was read to him; nor
that it was not. Asked if the con-
tents of the affidavit in question were
the same as read to or by him when
he signed it. he would not answer yes
or no. The plainest, most direct ques-
tions. which could be answered by
yes or no, were answered evasively
and qualitiedly
In substance, the questions related
to three things:
Did Kercher say in the presence of
Sheriff Jeffries, Deputy Sheriffs Barn
hart and Torrance, in substance the
following: Il have got it all fixed.
will not be convicted" and after be
was convicted. Baird dOuble-crossed
me-"
Did Kercher tell W. G. Bissell in
the presence of A. c. Haag in sub
stance the following: The affidavit
I gave Baird & Davis was not true.
Il am afraid to come to Idaho for feai
they Baird & Davis will put me Il
iail if l testify to the truth" AnC
that he said to D. W. Davis that thu
affidavit given to Baird and Davi
was not true. but that he was afral'
to come to the trial and say so les
they put him in Jail.
In answer to questions propounde'
by w. G. Bissell he would not say tina
+ either Baird or Davis told him that
he would make an affidavit agains
Baum that the case against him woul
be dropped. but he did say, repeatedly
! that he believed it would help him Il
, his defense and he had that belle
q when he signed it,.
4 Mrs. w. F. Kercher followed he
/ husband on the stand Her tesumon
+ was of no serious consequence, as sh
o said she had heard little of the con
h. versation between her husband an
Haag. and her husband and ID. w. Da
Wis. In answer to question as
v why she told Baum her husband wa
v not at home when she did not know
q said shit could not tell. Neither oil
= she know why testimony given dld n'
Is agree with that contained IN an all
o davit made by her. She contradict
N her husband in several points, notapl
10 that she did not request Mr.. Haag no
= to come to her home in Ontario an
a more: and that she was not afraid
II Baum. when her husband said 81
70 was. Later she changed her stat
?. ment by saying that she was atra
m oe Baum because he was prOsecutlI
,e attorney and could do anything. III
ts referee sustained an objection to
D. question if she We're not now ARA
that Mr.. Baird. because he was pro
he eoutiug attorney, could put her hu
D. band in Jail.
~ The prosecution endeavored to she
m bv Kercher that attempts had be-
So made to coerce him to repudiate an a
mn fdavit made to Baird * Davis, and
rd make one directly opposed to it. n
m defense tried TO make him admit th
So the reason ne feared 20 come
mr. Idaho. and why he had attempted
,v repudiate the affidavit he had ma
lis before notary in Ontario. was b
IA cause there is charge of forgery nc
he pending against Kercher still und
.+s posed off, and that this charge b
mi been used TO intimidate and coei
ed him. The attorney who drew the ai
to davit is coming as witness for
.id defense and viii be able, probably,
I'm assist IN determining the degree OF
ne uendence that can be placed in az
I'm thing Kercher might say under os
,ut or otherwise. He has given both SIC
Ise an affidavit. and the contention
,st made by each side that he gave the
nd fdavit opposed to them under dure
re- The affidavit maker in the fou
lat case to come up for hearing the p
I'm Durbin charge was reached shor
before court adjourned. Durbin m;
"A nm , fFid.,- vii choroino o n Baum "