Weekly journal-miner., 1920-04-14

| that the information was q peculiar one alleging the common law Of 1 fense in which there were set up the
 statements of force, use of narcotic | liquor and threats of immediate harm
 with apparent power to exercise same
 and also the statutory ofiense which
 need be based only on the proof of
 the act and of the homage of the vic 1 tim. The defense believed that the
 common law allegation opened the
 door to attacks upon the moral char | aCter of the witness to show alleged 1 lack of necessity for the employment 1 of force or other means of coercion. There was an involved series of ob- i jections, arguments and rulings, and then Mir. Clark agreed with the court
 that if he failed to prove the statutory i offense, he would submit to a direct verdict for the defendant, even though the common law offense might be | proved McCarran claims the indict- ment then must be held to charge the i statutory offense with all other mat ters appearing as surplusage, and that | by beginning to put in testimony on | the alleged common law offense, the state had elected this as its issue. Judge Lockwood ruled, however, that at this time, he would proceed under the theory that the state meant to charge the mishandling of a minor child and confined the defense to at tacks upon the recollection and credi- bility of the witness, limiting all at | tempts upon her previous reputation.
 The defense then appeared to be well supplied with ammunition and proceeded to go over the early life of Mrs. Schendel thoroughly. Judge Nc Carran asked about Mrs. Schendeps ! marriage to Schendel at Goldfield, | New, after weeks acquaintance with him and casually intefjected the name of Benjamin Henley, a relative of Schendel's.
 Did you not" he asked, accuse MT. Henley's brother, Dave, at Gold field of having tried and succeeded in violating you, and did you not later say that this charge was untrue?"
 He came to my house and acted smart the witness returned The defense then repeated the ques- ! ton with some variation. but naming one M. R. Hampton of Jerome The answer, was not allowed. and at this time in the absence of the jury, Me Carran offered to prove, if permitted that the witness was a woman of mo- torious habits in a number of places, mentioning specifically, Goldfield, New, Prescott, Jerome, Ash Fork, | Flagstaff and others. The offer was rejected under the ruling of the court
 This brought things to the lunch hour. After recess, the defense pro- ! ceeded to ask many questions relative to the places of residence of the wit ness in Jerome and elsewhere. McCarran then brought in the name of the third man whom the defense alleged had been accused of miscon- | duct by Mrs. Schendel Heewas known as "Curley" Coffelt
 Who is Hampton? was suddenly fired at the witness.
 "A friend of mine 1 remember now. He is friend of mine" Do you entertain any love or af- lection for Hampton?"
 Yes, sir. I like him." (4N Ol NlllN lllAll q lNllCl Ju1k DN- fore you left Jerome with your hus- band last fall?"
 Yes. sir"
 A letter, the writing of which the witness had admitted, and purportinC i to be the one written 10 Hampton. was offered in evidence but rejected Did you at the home of Harry ! Carlson in Jerome tell Carlson that ] Hampton had tried and succeeded iu mistreating you at Ash Fork" No"
 The attorney then suddenly plunged into the testimony relative to the acts of Sage and Woods in Sage's ] apartment, and there ensued series Of questions and answers of an un- printable nature.
 This was soon blocked, however. and the case swung as rapidly again to the question of the lady's age.
 She was asked in quick succession if she had not told both Floyd and | Giles and at another time Carlson that she was over Is, and the wit ness admitted she had.
 When you applied for a marriage license on April r, 1919, at Gold field, did you not take an oath that you were over l8?"
 q did"
 The witness explained that many girls did this.
 You know the nature of an oath?" No; 1 don't"
 Are you now testifying under oath?"
 T am"
 "Is your testimony here, now, any more truthful than it was when you took oath as to your age ill applying for your marriage license"
 There appeared to be no direct an- swer to this; there were objections and some argument.
 Questions anent an alleged warn 1 ing by Giles to the witness against 'rustling" in Jerome were objected to and the defense recollected that the state had made an avowal of a con spiracy affecting Giles and that this should open the way for this testi- mony. The line of testimony was stopped.
 Rapidly changing phases of the case left much to be desired for the spec l tators, who were continually enter tained by short recesses during which they were permitted to smoke ana 1 speculate while the court and coun-