Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-06
ATTORNEYS CLASH
\ IN HEDR|CK TRIAL
Suuabbles of Counsel Con-
sumo Morning Session of
Expected Last Day.
BY LESTER n. INSKEEP,
Stan Correspondent OF The Star.

Stan Correspondent OF The Star.
ARLINGTON COUNTY COURT
HOUSE, September 6.-The morning
session of what is supposed to be the
last day of the impeachment proceed
ings against Supervisor B. M. Hedrick
was taken up for the most part in
clashes between opposing counsel.
County Clerk William H. Duncan was
still on the stand under cross-examina-
ton by Commonwealth Attorney Will
ham C.. Cloth, who made repeated
efforts to bring forth testimony to refute
the witness statement on the stand
yesterday that Hedrick was "a palms.
taking and careful supervisor" After
many objections on the part of the
defense, this testimony was ruled in
admissible by the court on the ground
that it was the expression of personal
opinion. Hedrick was scheduled as the
last defense witness.
Character Witnesses.
Defense attorneys yesterday questioned
character witnesses as to the amount
of their holdings in Arlington County.
The most heated clash between attor-
news that has occurred since the begin
ming of the trial, took place on the
cross examination of Louis A. Mac
Mahon president of the investment
corporation, when Burnett Miller, aSso-
ciate plaintiff counsel, attempted to
show through the questioning of the
witness that the company was heavily
In debt at the time the note for the
installations fell due
commemorative Attorney Wilson M
Farr of Fairfax County, chief oefense
counsel, entered strenuous objection and
. heated argument arose. Judge Brown
ing sustained the objection. Farr
showed the court that the note was
docketed in the clerks Office in the
usual manner and was, he claimed,
lien against the property.
Among several witnesses who were
called to testify as TO Hedrick's char
aeter was Judge Walter T. Mccarthy,
who presides over the local circuit.
Judge Mccarthy said that the de-
PENDANTS reputation was of the best.
Others who were called to give this
class of testimony were State Senator
Frank L. Ball, Keith A. Brumback,
Charles T. Jesse, Ashton C. Jones and
L. G. Mcpherson.
The character witnesses were fol-
lowed on the stand by Edgar w. Pum-
phrey, a director, member of the ex-
ecutiye committee and attorney of the
Arlington Investment Corporation.
Humphrey said that the question of
water and sewers had been discussed
tors and executive committee of the
corporation. that it was thoroughly I'M
derstood all improvements were To be
made in the subdivision and that
Hedrick had been authorized to pro-
ceed with this work
The question of sewers had been
brought to the attention of the board
of county supervisors Humphrey said,
claiming that it had been discussed pro
and con and that Cloth, attorney for
the board, had said he thought it
would be good thing.
Questioned as to Minutes.
Humphrey was questioned at length
regarding the minutes Of the meet
angs of the board of county super
visors on December II and ID, at
which time the question of a settle
ment for the installations was dis
cussed and the county engineer and
commemorative attorney instructed to
take action in collecting the amount
due. Humphrey said that this resolu-
ton was passed on December l8 and
that he, as attorney for the company.
objected, claiming that the 81 $50 paid
the contractor was a sufficient first
payment on the work
Under croSs-examination by Miller,
Humphrey said that the total improve
ments to the subdivision had cost
$24 900, including the $9,l70 for water
and sewer construction, sic, 900 of which
was borrowed and the rest paid by the
company at the time.
e. C. Turnburke. member of the
Board of Supervisors from Washington
district, testified that the board had
given K. Messick permission to do the
work in Waycroft because Messick had
machinery that the county did not
have and could do it cheaper This
permission was given after a consulta-
ton with County Directing Engineer
g. l.. Kinnier he said.
william H. Duncan, county clerk and
ex-oficio clerk to the Board of Super
visors, was the last witness of the day
and was still on the stand when court
was adjourned He testified as to the
proper recording of the investment
company's note on the land books of
his office.
When questioned as to his associa-
tions with the Board of Supervisors,
Duncan said that he had missed two
meetings in the past II years.