People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 February 1894 — FOY ON THE STAND. [ARTICLE]

FOY ON THE STAND.

A Cronin Aspect Testifies for the Defense. He Enters a Denial of AH of HU Wife's Damaging Statements and Asserts His Innocence of Complicity in the Crime. ABSTRACT OF HIS EVIDENCE. Chicago, Feb. B.—Dan Coughlin’s attorneys created -something of a sensation by putting Andrew Foy upon the stand to refute the damaging testimony of his wife. Outside of Coughlin, Mrs. Foy’s most direct charges were against her husband, and it was absolutely necessary for the defense to bring Foy to the stand. •‘Call Andrew Foy,” said Judge Wing, and the man who seems, according to his wife’s testimony, to be inextricably entangled in the meshes of the mystery that surrounds the murder of Dr. Cronin, took the stand and was sworn. Foy said he was living at 91 Locust street in 1889. He knew both Dr. Cronin and Daniel Coughlin and belonged to the same camp of Clan-na-Gaels as the latter. Coughlin called at his residence twice in April to secure his influence in electing a friend to office. At neither of these visits did the witness and Coughlin hold whispered conversations. No part of their conversation related to Dr. Cronin. Foy then related how, on May 12, he went to Horton’s to help build the new house, being asked to assist because of his skill as a layer of pressed brick, of which the front of the Horton house was made. About 6 o’clock in the evening witness, in company with John Boyle and Patrick MeGreevey, left the Hortons’ and went to McGreevey's, he said. Boyle remained with Foy until they parted at Lincoln avenue. Mrs. Horton, Foy said, was considerably under the influence of liquor, and her husband was in the same condition. During his stay at Horton’s ndthing was said about Dr. Cronin. When witness got home that night some friends were there, and there might have been some reference to Cronin in their conversation, but he could not remember it. Foy admitted that he had not lived with his wife since her appearance as a witness for the prosecution.

Returning to his expetiences on May 12, Foy said he did not see Coughlin at any time on that day. His wife had at various times accused him of being an anarchist and the mai who threw the bomb at the Haymarket riot. She also, on one occasion, said that the man Kennedy who lived upstairs in his (Foy’s) residence, was the man who drove the white horse. Then Judge Wing asked the crucial question; * “Did you, Andrew Foy, have anything- on earth to do with the disappearance and death of Dr. Cronin?” “I guess not” f “What do you mean by saying ‘I guess not?’ ” asked the court "1 am positive I had not,” replied the witness. “Did any persons on earth come to your house to conspire against Dr. Cronin?” “No, sir.” “Did Dan Coughlin, so far as you know, have anything to do with the disappearance or death of Dr. Cronin?” “To my knowledge he did not.” “Did you ever read to Dan Coughlin in your house a letter concerning Dr. Cronin?” “I did not.” “Did Coughlin read such a letter to you?” “He did not.” “Did you live with and do the best you could for your family until your wife testiiied here and detectives were put into your house?” “I did.” “Did you know Martin Burke?” “I did.” “Was he ever at your house?” “He never was.” “Do you know Cooney?” “1 did ” “When was he at your house?” “He never was at my house but once—on May 22, 1889. He came to see if I could get him work at the place where I was working ” This ended the direct examination. Mr. Bottum conducted the crossexamination. After questioning him as to his history prior to the event which has brought him into such prominence. the attorney asked Fov how many, children he had. ” After studying for some time, the witness stated that he thought, dead and living, his offspring numbered fifteen. Asked if he had given one cent towards the support of his family since Mrs. Foy testified, he admitted that he had not contributed money but had told his grocer to let them have all the goods they wanted. He denied that he had since countermanded that order. He denied having told kis son Thomas recently that the testimony of John Boyle in defense of Coughlin was perjury—that it was given to save Foy, as things were getting desperate. He also denied having told Thomas that, had his mother not testified, he (witness) would have stopped drinking and would have given her 8100. To further questioning Foy said that on the night of May 3, 1889, he attended a meeting of camp 20; that on the night of May 4, 1889, and succeeding nights he was at home in bed. He was not friendly with Dr. Cronin immedi ately prior to May 4. He knew nothing of the events that took place in the Carlson cottage on the night of May 4, except what he ha»l read in the newspapers. Mr. Bottum then asked Foy if, in the presence of his wife, he did not write a letter to a newspaper purporting to give an account of the way Dr. Cronin died at the Carlson cottage. Foy answered no, and was shown a letter, which he denied was in his handwriting.