The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1922-02-13
State Attorneys Object I'd
Nearly Every Question
Defense Took Up It's Side
of Case Early This Morn
ing.
tBy ODserver)


lts going to be hard shedding for the
ueiehse TO stage an effective GOMEZ
Dack 10 the custer charges facing
'uck Garrett now being heard In dis
trict court. ,T
rms was evidenced when the defenseI
put their first witness on the sta nal
thls morning. II was evidenced later|
when two county officials were called
" tne stand and asked TO testify asI
10 the general reputation of GARRETT
ana ms deputies as peace officers.
Numerous direct questions OF the|
defense attorney We're objected TO andI
oyer-ruled. They were caught IN ON
every technicality, even to the phras.
ing OF questions. Assistant Attorney|
General h. l.. Fulton, prosecuting the
case seemed TO have an objection to|
I every question asked. Judge T.. D.|
oldfield is kept busy answering tbe|
objections.
After piecing together remnants oe
testimony this morning the state rest
ed' only a few witnesses were called
ana very little information was gar
nered from them.
j. l.. Hodges Is Called
The first witness of consequence for
the defense was j. L. Hodge, assistant
county attorney, who said that hc had
audited board bill eaim made
against the county by Buck Garrett
Tor prisoners confined in the county
Jail. He said he checked the bill with
the in and out" records.
Other matters relating b ~ =.
vestigations growing out Of the audit.
ing OF the claim were objected to by
the state and sustained The court
held that the records would bear ma.
terial evidence and IL necessary they
would be brought into court.
County Attorney Testifies
Jam-es fh Mathers. county attornev.
followed Mr.. Hodge on the stand. He
was first asked to tell OF a board on
inquiry held before Judge Winfrpy
some year or so ago. Instituted by \
Mr.. Hall of Pooleyille. -
! No criminal proceedings grew out
OF the inquiry. the witness said. but
the state objected to his giving a rea.
son why. on the testimony OF Mr..
Hill. he said, n deputy was sent 10
Pooleville to look into n nwnber of
charges The deputy made his report
upon returning. hut the contents Of
the report We're objected TO and sus
tain'd.
Thinks Laws Enforced
state attorneys raised chorus Of
objections when the witness was ask.
ed IL In his opinion as county ,attor-
ney he thought the laws were on.
forced IN Carter county. Defense nj
torneys evidenced smile of satIsfac.
ton when the witness replied:
Il think the laws were enforced.
They We're as far as I know" A
motion to strike this testimony from
the records was upheld and the wit.
ness broke off short 6 =
Objections Were Many t4
Questions to which the state sought
objections were many and pretty reg
ular. Among those objected 10 which
were directed at Attorneys Mathcrs
and Hodge include:
Did Garrett and his force serve com.
plants that were issued by your Of.
flee? ~
Were members Of the shoriff's force
prompt in obeying Instructions and
fulfilling duty2
Did you ever sec the sheriff or any
member Of his force loafing around
the office?
Were the deputies vlgilant In their
duty of suppressing crime?
What was the general reputation Of
the sheriff and his officers?
Did Garrett or any Of his deputies
defend or seek to shield anyone IN
court2
Was Garrett and his deputies promr,
Continued on Page Three,