Evening star., 1935-02-08

Al could not, and no one else
could, don't think.
Pope resumed questioning.
@. II there was an inch and three
quarters missing, could you identify
two pieces?
A. II the grain was matching.
Wilentz insisted that the witness had
disqualified himself to testify on iden-
tification Of the boards, and Justice
Trenchard stopped the line Of ques-
tions.
Mielke said he had q grove Of
Southern pine trees back Of his mill
and was familiar with their growth.
Pope explained. when Wilentz OBJ
jected, that he sought to show the
variation in the character Of pine
wood near the butt and higher in the
trunks Of the trees.
Identifies Wood
As Southern Pine.
Pope, proceeding along q new line,
had the witness tell the jury he had
handled 100000 feet Of North
Carolina pine and was familiar with
the various grades.
The millman said the attic board
was mo. 2, common" North Carolina
pine, used in sheathing and similar
uses.
O. What part Of the tree did it
come from?
A. The upper part.
O. Why do YOU say that?
A. Because Of the spacing OF the
knots. They are wide apart. It's not
butt pine.
The answers were given over the
attorney generals objection.
@. show you the ladder rail No.
16. What kind of wood is that?
A. North Carolina pine.
@. How does it grade?
A. No. 2 common. Same grade.
@. Is there any difference between
this ladder rail 16 and the other board
Cthe attic board)2
The gray-haired witness tapped the
attic board. There is more life In
this board" he said.
Wilentz and Pope debated at the
jury box the demonstration OF knots
in the board and rail by Mielke.
Mielke stood holding the board and
the ladder
"I1l come down and see what's
going on" Justice Trenchard said,
interrupting the colloquy. He stepped
down from the bench and rested his
elbow on the back Of the witness
chair.
non. ,,,.xk 49, .. Alfalfa r,o. IA
rected by the justice to go back to the
stand.
The defense attorney propounded a
long question, asking if Mielke could
tell whether this board and rail we're
part Of the same piece.
WilentZ fought every question.
Mielke said he believed they we're
not. and the attorney general asked
that the jury be instructed to dis
regard the answer.
Pope sought to pursue the line of
questions, while Wilentz continued to
object.
Justice Trenchard sustained the OBJ
lection.
when I qualified this man as a
witness it was as an expert in match
ing the grains Of the wood. am in
clined to think your examination of
him, Mr. Pope, has been irregular. in
view Of that limitation. I therefore
sustain the objection for that reason.
From his knowledge" Of life in
wood. Mielke was next asked to de-
termine whether the two sticks we're
Of the same piece.
Over Wilentz's objection, he an
swered that they were not.
Pope presented Hauptmann's plane
to the witness and had him examine
the bit.
The hicks in the bit, he said, would
leave beads" on the surface planed.
The angle Of planning would affect the
distance between the beads" some
what, he said.
Pope asked him II the number Of
times a plane was used would make
any difference on the hicks.
"It would work out about evenly"
the lumberman answered.
Examines Bruno's
Average" Plane.
Mielke said that the knife of a good
plane would retain hicks for a long
time.
@. A cheap plane knife wouldn't?
A. No.
He showed the witness Hauptmann's
plane.
@. That's a cheap plane, isn't it?
The witness looked at the bit care
fully and pronounced Hauptmann's
plane knife was about average"
Pope produced the two short boards
brought to court by De Bisschop.
Mielke was asked to examine the
saw marks on their surface and de-
termine whether there was any diff
| ference.
Wilentz objected and Justice
Trenchard said he failed to see the
materiality."
Pope's examination that the defense
sought to show the two were different,
was objected to by Wilentz as "coun-
sells testimony"
Mielke was allowed to answer that
the boards were not of the same piece
The saw marks were different and
lone board was thinner than the
other" he said.
Wilentz took the witness and drew
the admission that he noted the diff