Arizona republican., 1918-07-12
COUNSEL COMPLAINS OF TREATMENT AND
 COURT ADMON|SRES

Claiming that he did not think the court was giving him a fair deal, Hu- bert Clark, chief counsel for Wal Me Cam. charged with the murder of plained of the courts ruling in the case now on trial.
 Admonished to make no more such remarks or he would be punished for contempt. Clark replied that if he said anything out of the way, he would apologize but that he was no novice at the game as this was his fifteenth murder trial. He insisted that his ques- ton to which the county attorney had objection, the court holding with the state, was proper.
 Judge Crosby stated he had ruled and ordered the case to proceed.
 The most important court ruling made during the day came shortly af- ter the noon hour when the motion for an instructed verdict, made by coun- sel for the defense after the state had rested it's case was denied Clark based his motion primarily on the ground that the prosecution had not suffi- ciently shown corpus delicti, as no evil dence had been introduced to show that death was caused by other than natural causes.
 In denying the motion, the court stated that the corpus delicti had been sufficiently shown by circumstantial evidence and that without giving fur ther reason the motion for an in- structed verdict would be denied.
 The jury was dismissed while the motion was being argued and after the ruling the defense took up it's case, calling several witnesses to the stand before the afternoon recess. The argu- ments were lengthy on the part of counsel for the defense who gave nine reasons for asking for an instructed verdict:
 CD That the state has not proven facts sufficient against the defendant to warrant the submission of any issue of guilt or innocence of the defendant to the jury.
 t2) The corpus delicti has not been established by the state beyond reas- onable doubt or in accordance with the aw sufficient to warrant the consid- aration of any evidence against the de- sendant.
 tS) The corpus delicti has not beer established by any evidence sufficient O warrant submission t the jury.
 (4) That the photograph introduced IS the photograph of the deceased and Ipon which all evidence as to the iden tty of the deceased was based was not sufficiently proven and qualified IS a likeness and correct representa- ion of said deceased.
 (5) That the death of the supposed deceased has not been sufficiently es- ablished as required by law.
 (6) That the death of the deceased ny criminal agency has not been estab- lished by evidence sufficient to war ant submission to the jury or tho consideration of any evidence as to the 1cts or agency of defendant.
 @ That the evidence does no show the criminal agency of the de fendant in the premises sufficient tt warrant submission to the jury.
 (S) That there is no proof by thc state that the defendant killed Ken. meth C. Falson which is sufficient tt warrant any verdict other than that O not guilty.
 (9) That there is no evidence pre- sented that excludes a reasonable hy pothesis that the deceased came to hi death through suicide, natural death the criminal or other agency or mean! other than through the defendant, O. n some other manner.
 County Attorney L. NJ. Laney reste his case shortly after the opening O he morning session. The first wit ness called to the stand was W. F Price, secretary of the Phoenix fir department, who testified as to tn late of fire at the mattress factory on West Washington street nea which Kenneth c. Folston and Me ~ann were alleged to have been see before 9 o'clock on the morning 0 November 19. Price stated that tn fire was on the nineteenth and tha he alarm had been turned in at S5 o'clock
 The county attorney then took tn stand and identified the three bullet taken from the dried-up brain tissu of Foston when the examinatio was conducted at the Merryman un iCrt1 kir1p testified