American Falls press. [volume] (American Falls, Idaho) 1907-1937, 1918-08-09
THE BAUM TRIAL AND CONNECT
ING INCIDENTS.

Every chief witness for the prosecu-
lion went 70 pieces under cross ex-
animation.
Every witness for the prosecution
with the exception Of W. r. kercher,
testified that no attempt had been
made TO bride or intimidate him, o
10 get him to change the character OF
his testimony.
Another thing that stands out Is
The attempt OF the prosecution 10 ham
per Baum Ia making a defense. The
case vas conducted AZ a criminal
prosecution instead OF an investlga-
ton 10 develop the facts. A demand
by the defendant 20 be served with
copies OF the af1davits made against
him vas ignored. and IL was not until
the morning OF the second day Of the
trial that a part Of these we're dis
closed. by order OF the referee. The
originals In some OF the actions were
never disclosed. and Baum could not
prepare 10 meet the charges except
IN a general way.
Kcrehor testified that he had boon
offered an automobile 10 make an af-
ndayit ~contradicting the n he gave
Mr. Baird Tie also testified that when
he signed the affidavit for Baird he
was in JAIN awaiting a trial for forgery.
and believed the signing OF the Aft
doyit would help him In his trouble
Kcrcher told A. c. Haag. d. W., Davis.
W.. q Bissell and others that The aft
d8vit given 20 Baird was not true.
Yet he appeared at the hearing and
swore that Il was 10 developed AT the
trial. however. that another forgery
wNmrU. la NuUHNnn nmUNNnf him lnFG
and Il la easy 10 believe that he would
swear TO anything 20 keep that charge
from being pressed Kercher's state.
ments 20 Gallagher. his " attorney.
hif signing OF a counter affidavit
drawn by Gallagher on "a statement OF
the facts by Kercher and A. G.. Haag.
and statements made TO ID w Davis.
A. &. Haag and ". G.. Bissell, and
statements made on the witness stand
under cross examination. were as dam
aging 20 Baird as kercher's charges
were 10 Baum There was nothing
left of kercher when ne left the stand.
and when the defendants case was
put In. everyone who heard all the
testimony wondered why this charge
was ever included.
The nodgin Case.
Another leading case that fell flat
was The Hodgin charge. This was a
three cornered complication. and an
effort TO make three transactions look
like one ". T. oliver. w. A. West
aud William Southwell. trustees. sold
a tract OF land 10 Hodgin, for a mill
site A contract OF sale was entered
into. abstract OF title made. and decd
executed and turned over to HOdgin,
who put Il on record THIS ended the
FIRST transaction. Baum might with
propriety have represented both the
trustees aud Hodgin In the transfer.
as there was no conflict of Interest.
one wanted 90 sell and the other want
I'd 90 buy. and a good title was the
thlns az issue. But the trustees paid
Baum and the weight % the evidence
b. thar he represented them. II any
one
liodgin ISSUED a check for $500 in
part payment Tor the property. be-
fore The title was cleared and the deed
delivered 90 him After the deed was
delivered the check was turned over
90 me trustees and presented for pay
ment but not paid because Hodglu's
recount lacked SlOol OF being suffi-
49, ut 10 cover g. ". r. oliver and
90 Il Baum testified that Hodgin told
g. EN- he would 30 90 the bank and
authorize The bank to cash the check
fer he amount ON deposit. Jay Glib.
som testified that Uodgln came 10 the
hank and authorized him to cash the
cheek Tor that amount The check
was $50 cashed aud bore the marking.
cashcd for $3.50 99 in the upper loft
hand corner. and above the hgures
$500 on Che check a written $3.50
and "a line drawn through the 5000
Because of this change of figures Baum
was charged With @forsery naum tes-
tned that he did not change the fig
ures Gibson testified that the figures
looked llho those of Ice French
French testified that I'm two respects
the figures looked like his and in one
they did not. and he could not say
whether they were his figures or not.
The third complication was a suit
brought hy Hodgin against Hartley for
a riEht-of-Nay for a ditch. A check
for SiI 40 figured IA this. Hodgin
testified that this check was for at
torneys fees. and on IL the prosecu-
ton relied 10 convict Baum OF repre-
senting parties with conflicting in
terests at the same time. Bissell. who
drew the papers in the Hodgin-Hart-
ley matter. testified that the check
was for costs. me no retainer's Zee
OF attorneys Zee had ever been paid
by Hodgin. It requires quite a stretch
Of Imagination TO mix this suit. which
was brought after Hodgin had his deed
and was IN possession Of the property
with the purchase Of the property
Durbin Falls Down.
The charge Of Pike Durbin tina.
Baum had attempted 10 suppress ties.
timony OF a witness in a criminal pros.
ecution fell flat when Durbin's mem,
DRY failed him. and when he admitted
that he could not say whether he wal
drunk or not when he talked TO Baum
rrhothar or nnf fharn was 2 third mar