Show TABUING 3 TESflMONYb t Was Given by H E Grant in the Haworth Case I IMPLICATES REAVIS IN ACT I I Bsavis So Grant Says Told Him that He Wan With Haworth When I He Killed tho Old ManTh Testimony Was Introduced to Impeach I Im-peach Beaviss Story on tho Witness Wit-ness Stand Beavis Taken to Farm ington But Befussd to Answer as to the TalkArguments Begun Farmington June 1Srhe testimony in the llaworth case Is 1 all in and argu ments to the Jury were made this afternoon aft-ernoon by Mr Streopcr for the State and Mr Hamilton for the defense Tho arguments will be easily finished tomorrow to-morrow and the Jury will begin Us de llbcrationo Tho most Important witness today was H E Grant of San Francisco who claims that L U Rcavls made a statement state-ment to him on May ISth last which It true fixes the crime upon Haworth with Rcavls and probably Billy Cas tcllo as accomplices I Is true that Grants testimony cannot go to the I Jury as evidence of Haworths guilt j 1 lIt being simply evidence In rebuttal tondlng to Impeach Rcavis but It is important aside from thin case as evidence evi-dence of the guilt of the accused and of Rcavls who is now awaiting his preliminary hearing as an accomplice Grant will of course be a most Important Im-portant witness against Reavis when the trial of Ibe latter Is held Dr Edward T Rich ot Ogden test lied as an expert > for the State He had seen Hauorth In jail on May Sth of this year at that time defendant was sane H was stipulated that Dr Ezra C Rich of Ogden would testify the same The H P Grant lectures In Ogd non n-on January 13 1SOO and March 2S 189J t were conceded this to show that the dates might have been confused us to the time of Uaworths visit to Mrs I West as based on the time of their delivery delverr IMPEACHING REAVIS H 15 Grant of San Francisco testified I tes-tified that for fifteen years he has been proprietor of a sale stable In California and has been a dealer In horses that ho came to Utah at the Instance of Sheriff Abbott Wtness knew L U Beans otherwise known as CanvasBack Canvas-Back had known him for three or four ors was present In Redding Cal on May 10th this year when Rca vls was arrested conversed with flea via the day before on May 18th that conversation was with reference to Uaworths and Reavlss actions on the night of tho murder I Mr Allison then asked witness If he said to Roavls during that conversation conversa-tion Why dont you go to Utah and help Haworth out If Rcavls replied HI 1 if 1 go there theyll crack my neck too if witness then said What will they crack your neck for and If Rcavls replied Why cln It I was with Nick when he killed the old man Mr Weber objected to the question on the ground that the foundation had not been laid to make It 1 proper 1m peaching question On referring to the question asked Heals on the witness stand It was found that Mr Allison had asked him if he said to Grant that he W < with Haworth when the old man was killed The court ruled that the question could not now be asked of Grant whether Rcavls said he was with Haworlh when he killed the old man Mr Allison then asked that Reavls be brought up from Salt Lake for reexamInation re-examInation on this point and the court granted the request an adjournment adjourn-ment being taken until 1230 At the afternoon session Mr Reavls I was recalled for further crossexami I nation and testified that he had a conversation I con-versation with H E Grant at Redding I Cal the day before his arrest on May 19th Mr Allison asked him If I the following fol-lowing conversation took place at that time and place Rcavls Have you heard whether Nick Is sentenced yet Grant No Hln 1 trial I ought to have come up on the 2fHh had it not 1 I dont know They have taken Costellos deposi tionand paid him 40 for It r I could go to Nicks trial I could get him out Why dont you go If you can get him out 1 I havent money enough to go and If I did those Mormon s of b would put a lope around my neck and hang me too Why thats terrible hows that Why I was with Nick that night when hc killed the old man All three or uu only had 150 between us What could we do Witncsa positively declined to answer an-swer and was excused Then H E Grant was recalled and the same question was nuked him He answered that Rcavls made all of the statements attributed to him In the conversat Ion Under crossexamination Mr Grant was asked If Rcavls during the conversation con-versation referred to did not say They have got tho wrong man I was with Haworth the night of the murder I hate to go to Utah to help him out for fear theyll serve me like they do Nick They are chaining him down and turning the hose on him Witness denied that ouch statements were made Witness said Reavlw lived I In the outskirts of Redding near tho canyons and woods WItnesS denied I ever having told what his testimony would be to anyone but Mr Allison THE ARGUMENTS were began at 110 Jjy J County Attorney Streepcr Counsel gave a detailed and elaborates resume of the evidence Introduced In-troduced going over each Item The confession wos given a prominent plnce Mr Streepcr holding that It was of Itself a clear evidence of guilt for the reason that It detailed the manner In which the deed waa done each cir cumstancc having been verified by the I known facts In the cns > c Mr Streepcr cloxfcd at 30 and the I opening argument for the defense wna made by Mr Hamilton who In beginning I begin-ning expressed his conviction that the real murderer should be punished but insisted that a verdict of sly on circumstantial cir-cumstantial pvidcnce alone In I rash and unjustifiable Discussing the evidence I he directed attention to the parts of j the written confession of Haworth that I are presumably untrue He said the evidence shows that entrance could not I have been effected by the rear door on account of bars and locks while in the confession that la l given as the way Haworth says he entered That part f of the statement which says that when j the watchman Jumped up orhlf bed and ordered the intruders to throw up their hands and was tItan shot was din Bectcd counsel maintaining that the po j slllon of the body the spattered floor I and counters and the wound Indicated that the gun was against the victims I face when It was fijed Counsel said the evidence was clear that the ohl pat J was not Haworths and hw rinltulcfl y L = = J the Idea that after such a murder men could act as defendant had done Mr Hamilton criticised Sheriff Ab b otis course and inferred though he did not openly charge that the Sheriff has h been suppressing evidence favorable favor-able to the prisoner |