| Show WELLING WELLIN HELD FOR OR TRIAL JUDGE BINDS OVER OFFICIAL ON OK ONE COUNT False FaIse Claim Charge to toGo toGo toGo Go to District Court Ruling Rulin no Uno judge jode would be justified jus titled in refusing to permit A Jur jury Jo to pass on the evidence e City Jude Judge 31 M. J. J Bronson Thursday afternoon ordered Secretary of State Milton H. H Welling held for trial rial In district court on m i the false claim charge By JEm- JEm JENNINGS GS PHILLIPS With the defense attacking the credibility of the states state's star witness wit wit- ness closing arguments in the first firs phase of the preliminary hearing for Secretary of State M. M H. H Welling Well Vell VellIng ing on two felony charges began in city court cout Thursday h The defense concluded its app appeal ai for Secretary Welling's Wellings exoneration at noon and the state opened the final J round of its fight fight- to h have vc the official bound over to district court for trial on the first firt of f the com complaints complaints' com complaints om- om plaints plaints' at 2 p p. p m. m How soon Mr Welling Velling will learn his his' fate depends on the length of the arguments and the time re required required required re- re by City Judge M. M J J. Bronson to sift the mass of conflicting testimony testimony mony and arrive at his decision The defense opened its final argument argument ar ar- ar- ar after Clarence E. E Smith Spanish Fork postmaster and former for for- flier mer of the secretary of state had testified that he indorsed the salary claim in the name of Mrs rs Richards at the instance Continued on 00 Pose Pare Twelve T l WELLING FRAUD 4 CHARGE ARGUED Vf Continued from Pare Para Oc Ore Oe el elof of ot her husband Harold R. R Richards Richards Richards Rich Rich- ards another Welling Called as a defense witness Smith told the court Richards brought th the check to his hotel hole room on July 17 11 1931 He Richards ds told me the witness wit wH- ness less explained it ft was a check Issued Issued issued Is is- Is- Is sued to his wife and he asked me to indorse it I asked why and he said he was going to return it to Mr Welling so he Welling could pay the expenses of the secretaries secret o of state convention in August AugustI I 1 asked him why he didn't have Mrs Richards sign it the witness continued and he said she wasn wasn't available that she wouldn't sign i it and return it and finally that he wanted to return the check to Mr Welling that night Pressed Further Further questioning b by Burton W Musser counsel co-counsel defense 1 brought from Smith the statement he had asked Richards what Mrs Richards would say about the check He Richards said Dont worry It will m be okay with her the witness witness witness wit wit- ness testified Did y you u indorse the ch check ck Mr Musser asked Yes I J did Smith replied without without with with- out hesitation The witness then said Richards left the room after the check had been indorsed and he Smith didn't see Richards again until September The state did not offer to ex cross amine Smith and nd he was succeeded on the stand by Secret Secretary ry Welling Richards had testified the secretary secretary secre tary told him he needed money for forthe forthe or orthe the coming convention and because his son had just been released from froma a mission The defendant testified he had no expectation on ori Jul July 17 when the p. p as conversation about needed funds with Richards took place that tha his his son was to be released i We think the state when it first firs rested had conclusively failed t to show intent to defraud asserted Mr Mrs Mu Musser er beginning the closing arguments arguments ments after Mr Welling was ex ex- ex The only question now is Js whether the he testimony of oC Mr and Mrs Richards Richards Rich Rich- ards as modified o or amplified b bother by other witnesses was vas such as to mme min mize the effect of or the defendants defendant original case So I 1 propose JU to discuss discuss dis cuss the testimony of the Richards and the others I d dont don't nt want to too be unduly harsh but ut I 1 want to call the courts court's attention attention atten atten- tion ion to a striking thing in in connection with Mrs Richards' Richards testimony She knew a check cheek had been issued herShe her She knew she was was- not entitled to tot it t had never been employed by the state tate Cites Pay Cheek Check k kIt It seems to me me that any person with fine or even ordinary sensibilities ll ties ties ies if it she thought she was not en entitled entitled titled to that check would have told her husband and Mr Welling that tha she he didn't want the check that i iwas it was wrong to issue the check She didn't do anything ab abu about o u ut t it It was said with a good deal of malice and animus by Mrs Richards In n t testifying t ying to the Zion park incident inci incI- dent ent that she recalled distinctly as asi if it were yesterday Mr Welling thanking hanking her for tor signing the check and nd advising her husband to pad his expense account as an honorarium for or the service Any minded fair-minded person would have jave told Welling she didn't indorse the thc ic check She could have taken him im aside and told him the truth The fact is that conversation never never nev- nev er r took place Turns to Richards Consulting his notes Mr Musser then turned his attack on Mr Richards Richards Rich ards' ards testimony Mr Richards talks quite a bit the ie defense attorney said and he doesn't always talk precisely or ac ac- ac- ac Reviewing Richards' Richards testimony concerning his first conversation with Mr Welling about the check the indorsement of the check by Smith and other pertinent statements state state- month ments of or the witness Mr Musser continued Numerous discrepancies and contradictions appear in this testimony testimony testimony mony and I will wUl demonstrate to the court that it should not believe Richards Richards' Richards Richards' Richards Richards' Rich Rich- ards' ards testimony because of these defects Richards has a great facility of oC speech and avery a very convenient memory memory mem mem- ory the attorney continued citing Richards' Richards varying statements as to dates of important events in the case Story Attacked His story is that he procured Smith to indorse indor e the check in the presence of Moroni C. C Iverson Both Smith and Iverson have contradicted contradicted contradicted con con- this He said he procured Smiths Smith's Indorsement Indorsement in indorsement In- In because he didn't wan want his friends to think Mrs Richards got the check or received the money and because he didn't want any trouble at home If HIt he was sincere he could have accomplished his aim by having the man who indorsed the check return it to Mr Welling Veiling Both Richards and Mrs Richards knew of or the check that Mrs Veiling WellIng Welling Well Well- Ing instructed Richards to give it to ot othis his wife for lor services rendered Jr Mr Mr Musser declared But Richards knew if his wife got the check she would get the money noney he asserted He also knew if his wife's wite's name was forged on the check he ho could get the money The hole Story And that's the whole story behind behind behind be be- hind this case That's where the money went Here was Richards not only onty defrauding de- de his wife wiCe and the state but also committing a felony b by procuring procuring procuring pro pro- curing the indorsement of f Smith on the check I He wants this this' court to believe this his stor story a story emanating from froma a perverted per mind and a malignant heart You have either cither got to believe belleve Richards or Welling VeIling Richards' Richards te testimony tes- tes i is the only showing that Welling Velling received the check and Richards did not speak the truth He Ie did not return the check to toWe We ing Where does the truth lie Richards would have you believe belleve Welling Velling had bad to defraud the state out of to obtain First he had iad to present the false claim and then have Richards pad his expense account so Mrs Richards could be rewarded Its It's a fantastic tale Look at Richards' Richards conduct If Ift it t is true that Welling Velling asked him to get jet his wife's indorsement and re return return return re- re turn the check and Richards had one grain of honesty he would have refused to permit his wife wiCo to become a party to such a thing He would have lave protested when Welling as he sa says s told him to pad his expense account Points to Conduct Asserting that Mr Wellings Welling's conduct conduct conduct con con- duct in connection with the check was open and regular throughout Mr Musser pointed out he would not have acted so openly if he had intended to defraud the state Richards story was a deliberate perjury perjur from beginning to end You must either believe Wellings Welling's exceedingly exceedingly exceedingly ex ex- reasonable story or Richards Richards' Richards Richards' Richards Richards' Rich Rich- ards' ards exceedingly unreasonable one In conclusion Mr Musser cited testimony of Verle Carling to the effect Richards had threatened to get Wellings Welling's guts Ill get his guts quoted the defense defense de- de ense counsel and Richards from that hat time on has taken every step stepto to o satisfy the lust for Cor revenge that existed in his degraded heart Aside from the defendant Mr Smith was the only witness at the forenoon hearing He recently was wa acquitted In Third district court of ol embezzlement charges growing out of f asserted peculations in the secretary secre- secre tary ary of oC states state's office in 1933 Mr Smith c corroborated testimony Wednesday day by Moroni C. C Iverson also Iso a former Cormer Welling e that thai Mr Iverson was not in the room when Mr Richards brought the check heck Mr Richards h had d testified Mr Iverson was there C Called b by defense for or Mr Ur Smith was questioned by Burton W. W Musser a.- a. associate defense counsel as s to Mr Richards' Richards condition when he ie brought the check State objections objections ions were overruled Was Richards drunk or so sober r asked Mr Musser Iu ser hard to answer Mr Smith replied Was he sober No Was he drunk Well Id I'd say he was about half hal shot hot Judge M. M J. J Bronson remarked that II if f it was a question of degree I I suppose suppose sup sup- pose ose one could say 50 degrees shot While testifying Mr Iverson was not ot present when the tile check was vas indorsed in m Mr Smith corroborated Inthe in inthe the he main Mr Richards' Richards testimony He testified Mr Richards told him that jat the check had been issued to Mrs Richards and that Mr Welling had ad asked him to get the indorsement indorse men ment t. t Richards said he was going to return return re- re turn urn the check to Welling to help helpay pay ay some expenses Mr Smith testified tes- tes I asked him Vh why his wife did not indorse it and he said she was not nol available and if she did she would not ot return it to Welling and he wanted wanted want- want ed d to return it it The witness testified he did not think link Mr Richards had told him Mr Welling felling had told him Richards that the ie money was to be used for enter enter- taming the se secretaries of ot stale state or had told old him to return the check Defense efforts to bring from the witness accounts of conversations with ith Mr Welling regarding Mrs Richards were checked by state objections ob ob- Testimony from rom one witness that Mr Richards had threatened to get Secretary Welling Wellin and denial by br an an- other of any knowledge of ot an inci dent in which Mr Richards Richards' previous testimony had involved him featured closing hours of the hearing Wednesday Wednes day I Miss Verle Carling ling cashier in the secretary of stat states state's s 's office called as asa asa a defense witness told the cou court t that Mr Richards droVe her home from the capitol in September 1934 and in substance said he would get the Hie guts of Secretary Welling Mr Iverson also testifying for or the defense said he went to Smiths Smith's hotel room on July 17 after Mr Welling had asked him to find Mr Richards When he arrived Mr Iverson said Richards had left the room for tor the capitol in response to toa a telephone call He said Mr Smith appeared ill the blinds in the room were drawn and since Mr Richards was vas not present present pres pres- ent he departed Richards h had d testified that Iverson Continued on Page Pace Eighteen WELLING FRAUD CHARGE ARGUED Continued from Page rue Twelve Teve was W present in Smiths Smith's s 's room when he Richards Ichards procured Smiths Smith's indorsement in of Mrs Mr Richards Richards' Richars' Richars name nome on the salary claim Richards also alo testified to a conversation in the therom room rom with wih Iverson during which Iver son was purported to have said sid he would oud not indorse the check chec because his handwriting would be Present Present Iverson denied being present when Smith indorsed the check testifying he had never seen the te check Miss Mi Carling's Caning's testimony was wa heatedly heat heatedly edly ely contradicted by Richards under examination cross by the defense defene He said he recalled no automobile ride with Miss Mi Caning Carling and pointed out he was not working at the capitol At t the time lime tie of ot the asserted incident Did you ever discuss Secretary Welling with wih Miss Caning Carling asked Defense Defene Counsel Musser Not th that t I recall recal th the witness wines re replied re plied pIe to her came the Did id you ever er say her next question Ill Il get his Weiling's Wei Wei- I lin li lings ling's s 's Welling guts gt or Ill I'll Il get that tat I I 1 did not nol was Richards' Richards emphatic emphatic em em- answer awer Im Im not in the habit of f talking that wa way before women I Here the court cautioned the witness witness wit wit- ness nes to confine himself himsel in answering asked Richards Richards' examination ex ox- to the te question queston aked Q then concluded and the state rested rest f for r the second time tie durig during dur dur- ing ig ng- ng the hearing hearin Earlier Earler during Richards' Richards testimony the te defense sought to t learn lear why he didn't desire desie his hi wife wile to have the check chek Welling had instructed in him hint to bring brine to her for lor her indorsement Reading from the transcript of the legislative inquiry Into the possible Impeachment of the secretary Mr Musser asked the witness wine if i he had hadnot hadnot hadnot not said sid his hi wife wie had remarked that she he hc would like to get my roy hands hand on that check and keep it tat Mr Richards Ricards said the te statement wa was made to t the committee jokingly jok gl Still Sti you wouldn't give It to t your you wife would you aske l Mr Mu Mus- Mus ser aerI serI I took tok no chance was wa the reply Take Chance ChanceS I So S you wouldn't take any chances with wih your you own wile wife wie persisted the defence defene e No sir Richards Richard replied with wih a smile amile amie Another reason why he did not deliver de liver the te check to his hi wife but had hadIt hadIt hadit It indorsed by another aoler Richards cst lied was beaus because Secretary Welling threatened him by actions acton and ad the wa way he talked From the manner in i which the secretary sec see acted when he told him to obtain ob oh ob tam tain ti his wife's wies wie's Indorsement Indorsement Richards said sid he had reason to t fear I might have been fired fied for failure to obey I I 1 hadn't hadt worked there two years rears for lor nothing the witness asserted |
