The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1921-10-21

frauds ei.cscL 20 nave reen practiccd
n tho recent cl"rri"a:
Il don't knuw Whether h" "a or no..
7 c,ul,;nr say. | have n''"r heard any
cv.Lcnce.
Mr.. Robinson vas rneitiNn N his De-
vef taa, thHrc had hrrI fraud IN tina
election. hu;' refused I" shy h" believed
tina; Nal. ~ any u:h"r I'"rs"n III par
tirUtar. wHa gully. On "T''ss eNA!h'""-
zion i" tat;!ncl &c Ha"w Of n" reason
why tho deicndan: could not 70; ie:r
trial IN ono ,nunty. and Lat Nc cnG'u
give Nail cair ans. impartial iT.a'.
william aaul.
William t;aul testified h" had under
stood that thrvo was Il discrepancy 20
tween ballots east ana thu Vote '"nhtei
for snno OF the candidates. He rA!u no
IS takinI, part N tho circulation or TO
call rct!;!uua because I believe IN gooo
clean government ior tho c!ty.
From what Yen haE" hoard ana 7o'o
he vas asked near tho rVar;us!uH oi
l,rrthv ,!ract examination. do you he
Hove that This Defendant participated
In rno frauds whi'.I yuu say YOU be-
ltc,e: wcra prart.cod IA tho city cleo
,!ur. Anu {. lnUt Why You arc inter
cs,"I 81 tho circulation oc iA"se peu-
tons"
les. air
Ono Question. or thrco questions
scck:ug The same information. was ashod
Mr. Gaul Ly Mr. ltit= tnr tho thlTa
t.rir. ntr- Judge Robinson had t"!ce
sustained statos objections 20 tho pre-
yiuus questions which concerned tho
pe.tu!ons. II was this third question
ard u r"tprt from Mr.. Ritz that brought
/ Prosecuting Attorney Eachmann merry
declaration ihst unless the court conn
| peeled tho defense counsel 70 cease what
tho prosecutor termed 'stall!ng anu
, "horsep!uy." tina. the court would have
II app.."t someone else 10 prosecute
Nail.
Edmund L. Jones-
Edmund J.. Jones. an attorney testl-
fni tina, ne could no: say that he had
heard any :rLll iiuNls discuss the guilt
ur in:.prrI!cu I: Ills particular DEFEND
ant"
Z believe" he said, that there was
! fraud n tina election, but ! have no
| definite opinion Is - who IS guilty or
VIII" is not"
On cross examination he said he know
o. TO reason why the defendant could
not sc; u fair trial N this county.
W. NJ. Evanr-
w. N. Evans. former chief city &C
countant, was asked
Say ~ You ar" Interested N circulate
Ing these petitions for Tc, al ~ council
men and lhe city mH"agrr because YOU
believe that THIS defendant. BesSemer
Nail. F!rn Ch.-c Rvr.-y Thompson AMI
the witness. t. w. Brl!i lilo. participated
In frau! which effected the election OF
the present eleven members Of city
CuUnc!.?"
Il have no: formed m OPINION as 10
+ who participated IN tho fraud" Mr..
! Evans ""piied
A. Ills point Mr. RITZ was given a
, few minutes 10 confer with his CO.
counsel. J. J. /. OBr.rn. VINO AT the
time was in circuit court. The confer
enc" resulted IN the con soGdated otfer Of
ten Witnesses as noted.
Noyss r1rat witness.
Attorney s. NJ. Moves was the first
witness ra.lCI Yesterday morning. Ho
, testified that he was counsel for w. c..
M,GrcGor in tho latters contest Of
Councilman l.. A. Morgans seat. and
that lie was Il member Of the committee
"f 700. bat not particularly Interested
IN the Thompson case. He sad that re-
call petitions were circulated in the
Seventh. Sixth. Eighth ard Second
wards. He said that during the trial OF
Burley Thompson people were more than
ever convinced that there was fraud in
the general city CleCi'rrl. lie testified at
length concerning the preparation OF
the recall petitions and publicity given
actions Of tho committee of 100 and
League Of Women Voters in respect TO
the alleged !rreeU!ar!,:cs in the cleo
ton.
ON cross examination NJ. Noyes said
that he did not 500 any reason why
BesScmer Ea!l could not get a fair trial
IA the count.