Weekly journal-miner., 1921-10-12
.STAGE WRIT
 VIOLATED SAY
 3 WITNESSES
From Thursdays Daiiy)

or al any IdIe, OIllCtIS OI OlIleIS Ol the organization, violated the court iorder restraining them from operat- ing for hire vehicles between Pres colt and Jerome, was put in before Judge Sweeney. hearing the contempt case, after the new demurrer to the new affidavits had been quashed at 1:30 For a time 1t was not so much hearing on the alleged contempt of the court order as an example of the low estimate counsel held each other in, which is a sentence in contempt Iof good English, but very effective. Finally Judge Sweeney reminded everyone he was still presiding in the superior court and would in a way dictate the policies with regard to the introduction of evidence, as interpret ed from the books.
 After that, the atmosphere cleared a great deal. The state of Arizona, plaintiff in the case, represented by LeRoy Anderson and Alfred H. Gale, then went ahead to interrogate wit nesses concerning alleged instances in which the court order had been violated. With R. w. Byrns, general manager of the Arizona Bus com Ipany, on the stand, MT. Anderson brought into the case a ghost of a previous lawsuit, in the form of ci- tation of decided point in the appel Hate court Mr. Russell, representing the defendants, added to the general fund of information by remembering the names of the plaintiff and de- fendant in that very case.
 Two witnesses swore they had rid den Jerome Union cars and had paid their way at the rate of $4.50. They were Alfred D. Coston, an engineer of Clarkdale. and J. B. Johnson, chief engineer of the United Verde Copper company.
 Following them came MT. Byrns, Following MT. Byrns came strife.
 Both sides finally admitted that the Arizona Bus company had kept a sort of check on the activities of the defendants since June 28, when the Injunction went into effect MT. Byrns carried a memorandum book lin which were entered some examples lof the alleged violations. In some (. cases flat book was like red rag to, bull. In others, it did not have an eruptive effect. The question which was referred back to a de- ceased lawsuit, was whether the wit ness might refresh his memory by reference to a notation not made by himself. The defense held he certain lv could not. MT. Anderson called attention to the decision of the state supreme court and Judge Sweeney pointed out the defect. Exactly" '" said MT. Anderson, that is why l put in the question reference to his knowledge of the accuracy of the note at the time On that point the matter hinges"
 The matter stayed hinged on the point until adjournment time, the state passing the issue until later and the defense reserving the right to go into it also. Meanwhile the citation of law will be studied.
 Harold Anderson was brought into the case but only verbally. He had been driver for the Jerome Union, the witness said, and one day he stuck his head in the Arizona Bus depot and called on all ye who want to go 10 Jerome and man respond ed by taking his family and depart ing for Jerome in Anderson's car. The witness was asked if he knew that the passenger had gone to Je- Irome. No, the witness had not seen him go. But he was fairly sure he went. Why? Well, because soon after the Jerome manager called up and asked about this man, who at that time was in the Jerome office demanding refund of his Arizona Bus ticket!
 The defense, cross-examining MT. Byrns, doubted some of his testi- mony very much. In one instance, the witness had said, truck load of household goods had been carried by the defendants from Jerome to Pres colt. On MT. Norton's cross-eXami- nation the witness was made to ad- init that he hadn't seen the truckload of HH goods travel from Jerome to Prescott. He had only optically wit messed it in Prescott. How did he know it hadn't come from Humboldt. Well. mainly because he had been called up and informed that 1t was coming from Jerome. That, how ever, in the view of defense counsel, did not constitute first-hand knowl- edge.