The Idaho recorder. [volume] (Salmon City, Idaho) 1886-1927, 1918-01-11

! BIZ the serious offense of perju.E
ad been made at the court house
Eainst a w. Pipes, cashier of the
Rioneer bank. On the strength OF the
sUmpIairt, which WAS sworn to by
q r. CIute, a lnember of the bar,
bounty Attorney Rees had a warrant
fsued out Of the probate court mr.
nipes was called up By telephone and
aaQuested to appear at the court.
I his he did forthwith and was
arOmptiy released on mis- personal
aCognizance for hearing set for
& b next day at ten o'clock.
\ AT the appointed hour perhaps Il
4 iozen men were attracted to the
spurt house by The report of what
lad taken place there the evening
etoTe Mr. Pipes was on hand at
Elat hour with A. c. Cherry
Is his retained counsel. The prosecu-
on was represented by the county
lttorney ana former District Judge
". Stevens. At the outset Of the
proceedings Mr.. Cherry objected to
BE appearance of Judge Stevens in
lhe case as violating the ethics of
egal practice. In rejoinder Judge
stevens said for himself that he had
knOWn nothing at all about the case
tntil he blew into Salmon the even
tg before and had been invited by
&he county attorney to appear with
] Jim for the reason that he, Stevens,
attoTndr OF record in other suits
lending and with which this matter
B a part. Judge Stevens said, how
sVer, that ne would remain specta-
pr only il his active presence were
leriously objected to by counsel. On
bis point the court at first ruled to
lKclude the participation of Judge
stevens but afterward concluded 9th
srwise and stated that the former ju-
list could act if he wanted to act in
he case with the county attorntE.
The serious charge arose out OF an
apparent conflict of statements in af-
ldavits made by the defendant and
u record in the district court in two
fuits now pending therein. One OF
hese suits involves the ownership OF
he so-called n. l. Andrews ranch,
sherein Mr. Pipes is alleged to have
worn that he did not own said
ahnch and the other case has grown
ip out Of { later suit instituted h
be defendant against Tage Brothers
'br trespass and damages, wherein
be same defendant, Pipes, is alleged
b have sworn that he did own the
Inch in question. These facts were
ieveloped in the testimony offered
~ the state when Clute was called
o testify.
In explaining the transaction both
Hessrs Pipes and Whitccmb were
ieeply moved when they took the
Rand in court. Senator Whitcomb
sad that, acting for Pipes, he had
prepared the papers referred to in
food faith to protect his clients in
frests in q deal whereby Pipes had
bought a mortgage on the Andrews
Rrm and had likewise acted for Pipes
Subsequently in litigation growing
but of the purchase of the mortgage
nd his efforts to get possession of
he farm in question. Senator Whit
ktnb said ne had actualI taken n
fuit claim deed from Andrews to
4 2ipes and the s.tne had been locked
b his, Whitcomb's safe, for the bet
i r part of year before he told Pipes
n had the document at all, having
brgotten it even himself. Senator
AhitComb said whatever blame
|hould arise over this part of the
fansaction should attach to him and
+ BIT to Pipes. The witness choked
nth emotion as he characterized the
resent prosecution. 1T is just dirt
Jas what he said as his parting shot
d he left the stand.
In his own behalf Mr.. Pipes told
his taking over the Andrews mort
eRge, which he bought from a man
Butte. Then he led up to the pres
PIT troubles in which he found him
flf involved, when he, too. became
|eeply affected and shook with emo
ION. He said that at the time of
2k'ng. the first affidavit he did not
bow that he had a title deed 10 the
Sndgew farm The subsequent af-
aiaVit to the effect that he did own
g farm was made after Mr. Whit
bmb told him about the deed be
: kent in Whitcomb's safe.
Al the time I bought the Andrews
& aoTtEage.' said Mr Pines. Mr.. An
feTS told me he would protect me
getting possession of the farm,
bat he would execute the required
Z per but l relied on my rights un-
r a receiverShip to be applied for
FbseGuent TO the purchase of the
aortCage. Andrews might or might
p have told me he wouli execute
2 r me quit claim deed and might
I might not have asked him to do
| don't remember"
The hearing on the part Of the de-
nSe was in the hands OF Mr. Cher
who directed il with skill and
4ree, cOntendinS that personal spite
nrE was a the bottau OF the pros.
fuuon. He also maintained that in
fntional wrong had not been com
ilttsd al all By the defendant and
aaf therefore he should rct he
9riher Inundated but that to
harzn should be speedily dismissed.
!, Caer.l- s7id that Senator Whit
Rnb was likewise entirely blame
SS
TrF7r~H