, 1926-02-03

ng dow the decision on January
'tice Fred Blume, states as follows:
sion. and the breaking into the
powder magazine and the experience
OF Lampitt in the handling of fuse
and dynamite. The asking by Lam
pitt Of Bankson for permission to
go to the powder magazine. inquir-
les by Lampitt of the nitroglycer-
in and, dynamite therein and in
quiring about 60 per cent and 100
per cent ~nitroglycerin and his being
told how, In order to set off nitro
glycerin it was advisable to tie
sticks of dynamite with the nitro
glycerin SO that the fuse would
first explode the dynamite, and the
dynamite would be certain to ex-
plode the n~itroglycerin; Lampitt's
visiting the magazine and inquir-
ing about the powder n nitrogly-
cerin. the finding of the door of
the magazine broken open and
standing ajar, INT the jimmying
of the window and door by the use
of an iron bar. Fifteen sticks of
I'LL SCilh anu 10 SUCKS OIL Qyna-l
mite had been stolen from the pow
der house the night of the murder.
The finding of iron bars in the
possession of the defendant, in his
automobile, and testimony showing
that the bars fitted into the marks
made in the door and window of
the powder house. The finding of
some of the dynamite in a sack con-
tanning red string to the possession
of the defendant through Empire
bacon that he had purchased from
the storekeeper, used to tie up the
bacon, which vas purchased shortly
before the explosion. The finding
of the bacon in the possession of
the defendant. The familiarity of
the defendant with the bunk house
and as to the room occupied by
Foight. His Indifference when he
saw the dead bodies of Seaton and
His statement after arrested that
he had benin messes of hat sort.
before and that no one could get
anything on him.
Then follows offers by the de-
PENDANT to show the presence of
an automobile in Grass Creek that
night a few minutes before the ex-
plosion. and the district judge rul-
ing out the testimony, and the de-
PENDANTS exception to the ruling
of the court and the holding that
this testimony would have no eff
feet, other than that the person or
persons in the car might have had
something to do with the crime,
and the holding that testimony of
that character offered by the de-
PENDANT on trial. which would mere
ly have generated a suspicion that
some other person might have COM
cluded by the trial court.
Then follows testimony by Craig
testifying to a conversation with
Lampitt concerning the trouble be-
tween Lampitt and the deceased.
The defense claimed that the testi-
mony was too remote, and their
attempt to have the evidence ex-
cluded, and the trial court over
ruling the motion, and the supreme
court rules that the remoteness of
the evidence does not affect its
competency, and ven though this
testimony was remote, it was not
error to amt 1t.
Offer by the defendant to intro
duce testimony of witnesses who
had experience with dynamite, and
the exclusion of the evidence by the
trial court for the reason that the
conditions under which the explo-
sion were shown to made were not
the same conditions that the explo-
sion in question took place, the
supreme court holding that evidence
of such tests should be received
with caution and only admitted
where it is obvious to the court
from the nature of the experiment
that the jury will be enlightened ra-
Their than confused. The witnesses
were allowed to testify whether
there would be any fuse left after
such an explosion. they in fact
testified to the result of their ex-
pertinent made in the same manner
they testified to the result of an
explosion which they had seen, hold
ing that the exclusion of the ex-
pertinent and the allowing witness
SEES t. testify was not prejudicial
error.
Then the discussion of the re-
fusal of the trial court to grant a
continuance on the application of
the defendant. because Of the abb
sence of a witness, the supreme
court holding that it was within