Evening Republican, Volume 20, Number 237, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 October 1916 — DEFENSE WITNESSES NOW ON STAND [ARTICLE]

DEFENSE WITNESSES NOW ON STAND

Witnesses For Defendant On Stand All Monday Afternoon and Today —Jury May Get Case Soon. The trial of the State vs. Ernest Morlan, charged with perjury, continued until 6 p. m. Monday. The afternoon was occupied with the examination of the witnesses for the defense. Six witnesses were examined. They were, Ernest L. Morlan, defendant; A. W. Sawin, Amer Morlan, father of the defendant; Jasper Cooper, of Kniman; Tom Garland and Mrs. Omar Morlan, mother of the defendant. “ The generar trend bT the testimony of these witnesses verified 'for the most part the testimony of Ernest L. Morlan, wiiich was reported in paid; in Monday’s Republican.

On examination Morlan stated that Makeever’s teams, usually driven by Bohemian John, hauled com various times between July and Sept. 4th, 1915. On July 13, 1915, Morlan said Bohemian John drove west past his farm with a load of com while A. W. Sawin vms there buying hogs. x "On another occasion in July, about the 7th or 4th, he testified that he saw Bohemian John with Makeever’s team Leave the county farm with a load of corn and drive west. Mr. Morlan stated he was talking to Mr. Kercher at the latter’s farm, just west of the ; county farm, at this time, and that i when the wagon came past he jumped t on and rode to his (Morlan’s) home, j Another time, Aug. 12, 1915, witness declared he and his father had brought a load of lumber from town and that while he was unloading it at home, Bohemian John drove by with Makeever’s team and a load of coin. On another occasion, ;he afternoon of Sept. 4th, 1915, witness declared he saw two teams going wost~past his place and that he rooegnized tlie drivers to be James Shelly, an employe of the county farm, with a county farm team, and Bohemian John, with Makeever’s team.

Mr. Morlan was subjected to a gruelling cross examination by Attorney W. H. Parkinson for the state, who by repetition of questions attempted to confuse witness on dates and circumstances. This examination brought several objections by Attorney Lowrey for the defense, all of which were overruled by the court. A bit of information, was brought out that relieved the monotony of the examination and afforded considerable amusement for the court and spectators when the witness admitted, under cross examination by Attorney Leopold, for the state, that some time previous he had a conversation with a Mr. Wynegar on the milk train enroute to Hammond, in which he said, in substance, that the court house in Rensselaer was full of crooks and that lie was after Sweeney Makeever and that he would get him.

The witness was then dismissed and -A. W. Sara, of —Rensselaer; was called by the.defense. He stated that he saw a load of corn going by the Morlan farm on July 13, but he was not sure that he could identify either the driver or the team. ‘At this point, the witness testified, on examination by Atty. Lowrey, oif the defense, that he was curious when he -saw a load of com going west and asked Moria i who the owner of the team was, and was told it belonged to Mr. Makeever. The state objected strenuously to the admission of this testimony on the ground that it was heresay evidence and on .other points. Objections were overruled. Attorneys for the state, however, continued their objections and the jury was dismissed pending argument of points. The objections were, sustained. Resuming the hearing, the court made a statement to the juiy directing them not to consider Sawin’s conversation with Molt lan as given in the testimony. Defense then brougliT mrt Rhat Mr. Nichols had previously talked to witness and —tried —to toll hi m th at he (witness) was mistaken in the year he saw com hauled. Atty. Leopold also brought out that witness had met Atty. Lowrey at depot ind had talked to him about cas"s and that he had also talked to Makeever this summer. Atty. Lowrey then took witness, who

stated' ha. !wa» sure the com he saw wps hauied in 1915. After the abort cross examination J>y Atty. Leopold, witness was dismissed. ■ Omar Morlqn, father of defendant, then took the 'stand. After preliminary examination his testimony coincided with that of his son in most points regarding dates and x incidents of the alleged hauling of com form the county farm.

Atty. Halleck of the defense, then examined Jasper Cooper, of Knimau, who testified as having worked at the county farm from February to .September, in 1914. Mr, s teated t hat on a Sand ay in Ju Iy, 1916, he drove to Rensselaer and then to the county farm; and that on that day he conversed with Jas. Shelly, one of the witnesses, about testimony Shelly had given to the accountants, in which it is alleged Shelly confessed fear to testify to the truth fpr fear of losing his job. Strenuous objection at this point by the state was overruled. Attorney Leopold then took the witness and attempted to prove that ill feeling existed between the witness anil Jesse Nichols, manager of the county farm. Witness maintained he and Nichols were good friends but that he quit his job because he objected to the way Mr. Nichols treated inmates of county farm. He then want, before

the county commissioners with-com-plaint against Mr. Nichols, with a view of having Nichols released from county farm. It was then brought out that Mr. Morlan “happened” in at this commissioners’ meeting and Atty. Leopold attempted to show that Morlan had induced Cooper to make complaint. . — — Atty. Halleck then took witness and. attempted to show that witness went before the board for benefit of inmates and not through toward Mr. Nichols. , Torn Garland, who lives southeast of county farm, next took the stand but could not testify with certainty to any dates, whether corn was hauled in 1914 or in 1915. In an endeavor to prove that the time Garland saw corn hauled was in 1914, Atty. Leopold consulted and read Garland’s testimony from record of field examiners of the state board of accounts for verification,— ~— The last witness of the afternoon was Mrs. Omar Morlan, mother of the defendant. Her testimony was much the same as that of her son.