Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-01-24

question" the defense attorney had just
to Donald T. King, Washington Her
aid reporter. who was being cross ex-
amined.
The court interrupted to remark i'm
patiently and with some show OF indig-
nation These comments and charac-
terizations of counsel. one to the other
have no place in this or any other court.
They have got to stop and am going 70
see that they stop from now on
King. who took the stand yesterday
and contradicted the testimony given by
Edward J. Kidwell, ir., laxative Teapot
Dome Juror. was put through severe
cross examination by defense counsel In
IN effort to impeacil his testimony. The
reporter stuck to his contention that
Kidwell had said that Sinclair could go
higher than $l5O,O00 to 5000 900. and
also reiterated other statements the
Juror was alleged to have made concern
ing the trial and what he expected to
get out of 1t.
Has Little Success.
Mr.. Hoover did not succeed in get
ting King to admit that he had put
some of the leading questions to the
juror himself. and also the defense at
tOtIlty dtltIupGCu W ollOW tIinh Vic IC-
porter had flashed roll of bills in Kid
wells presence.
He made King demonstrate to the
court how he held his pocketboOk in
one hand while he was resting an elbow
on the bar of the near-bcer saloon
where the alleged conversation took
place October 20. while Kidwell was
serving as Juror.
The defense attorney met with little
or no success when he questioned King
about the discussion he had regarding
the races at Laurel.
King replied that he had merely said
he wished he had gone to Laurel the
day before. as he might have made
a lot of money. having picked several
winners.
Didn't you say you had plenty OF
money anyway" Hoover insisted.
Il have never had plenty of money, y
King replied, land I did not say that. y
Clashes With Witness.
Mr.. Hoover had a personal clash
with the witness when he asked King
about the latter having told kidwell
he was employed in the same office
with j Ray Akers. the man who took
him to the near-beer saloon. King had
said he had spoken loud enough for
Akers to hear him and Hoover wanted
to know why.
Il went there to obtain certain In
formation" King explained. IF might
borrow an expression from one OF your
men. would have been burned up
il my identity had been known"
The defense counsel protested to the
court and succeeded in having the an
swer stricken from the record.
Counsel of both sides fought long
and hard over the affidavit which King
had sworn to and filed with the court
at the time OF the mistrial. Hoover
had told the court he was trying to
contradict and impeach the witness be-
cause some OF his testimony differed
from that set forth In the AFFIDAVIT.
Among these. the defense attorney
pointed TO the conversation regarding
the $4,000 and Sinclair. which the
the affidavit did not mention
Furnished Information.
II had been brought out clearly
enough that King merely had fur
nished the information 10 the district
attorneys Office and none of its attor-
news had prepared the affidavit. IL
any one was 10 be impeached, OLeary
said. the paper should be made the
object of Impeachment. Justice Sid
dons objected 10 the manner In which
MIR. Hoover was conducting the exam
ination and reminded him that If he
wished to lay foundation 10 impeach
the witness he would have to proceed
along established rules.
MIR. Hoover continued to read from
the affidavit to the effect that Akers
had remarked that Sinclair had plenty
Of money. He had asked King II he
had made such a statement as appear
ed in the affidavit This led OLeary
10 protest against Jasmine questions. -
as King previously testified that he
had sworn to the AFFIDAVIT and all II
contained.
Hoover Is Baked.
Hoover's further efforts TO establish
a variance between Kings testimony
Yesterday and his AFFIDAVIT met with
only partial success He read from the
affidavit statement that .Akers said
TO Kidwell that the latter supposed he
would get something out OF this" and
kidwell said. Sinclair has plenty OF
money and there is no limit 10 what
he will 60" and then asked King II
that was actually said
Not In those very words" replied the
witness.
Then why did YOU put 1t IMP"
Hoover demanded. and OIeary jumped
TO his feet with an introduction 10 an
objection. but was cut short by Justice
Siddons. who asked. DO you oblect9"
and on receiving an affirmative reply
the court sustained OLeary,
Hoover then asked II King had sworn
10 the truth In the affidavit and once
more his question was blocked BY
OIeary. Handing the affidavit 10 the
witness. Hoover asked him 10 look at II
while he read from Kings testimony