Show of i. i WELLING ELLING CASE GIVEN GI YEN JURY IURY TATE HOLDS FRAUD INTENT IS ADMITTED S e f e n s e Ridicules Ac Accusations s as asS S Fantastic By JY JENNINGS PHILLIPS The fate of Secretary of tate Milton H. H Welling arged barged with presenting a S claim to the state govern- govern jent nt was given to a Third court jury at p. p m. m iday day I The case case was given to the jury ter District Attorney Calvin W. W had completed arguments or the state by asserting tho the de- de 1 ant dant had shown intent to derand de- de rand Bud nd by his own words rAfter After being escorted to its rooms 7 James Welch Velch baill bailiff the tho jury vu taken u taken to lunch then returned to th the city cUy and county building to ton begin n its deliberation of evidence ree ted since sinco retrial of the s secretary secre secre- re k tary of state opened last week I Refers to Inquiry 0 I Mr r. r RawlIngs told the jurors in argument that the defendant elf had shown intent to defraud defraud de de- de- de fraud as charged by the state The district attorney referred to by the defendant before legislative inquiry last aSt year car that L Golda Richards had ed led her husband Harold P. P Rich Rich- ds former in the Well VeIl office on field trips for com com- lons ip The state contends a salary heck eck eck Mr Welling Velling ordered issued Mrs Richards was a false claim Continued on Page Two Column Four Pour WELLING CASE CASEi I i GIVEN TO JURY r Continued from Pegs Pare One Olle issued with Intent to defraud thet the thi t state Both Mr Richards and Mrs Richards Richards Rich Rich- I I ards had testified she did not work for the state was entitled to no compensation and received d none The defense has contended Mr j 1 Welling ordered the check issued to tol l pay Mrs Richards for tor services the I defendant believed she sho had performed performed per per- j formed for tor the a state te while with her herl husband huband on field trips i Juror In Chambers Before opened Frid Friday y morna morn- morn tog ng a conference to which an unidentified unidentified uni uni- juror was summoned was held in chambers of Judge Roger I I. I McDonough who lisa has presided j over the retrial 4 No announcement was made of i what took place I Judge McDonough after the con- con terence open opened d tho the court denied a defense motion for a directed verdict verj verdict ver ver- j dict of ot acquittal and recalled tho the thoury jury ury which had bad been excused Thursday Thurs Thure- i day afternoon during a arguments on f the motion To speed peed the case the morning session was held until p. p m. m i with no noon noon recess State coun eel ael el and Burton W. W chief defense defenso counsel each took an hour l and nd a half halt for argument Opening for tor the state Parnell f Black assistant district attorney reviewed evidence and said it all f points to the falsity of the claim t The evidence is clear Mr WellIng Well Well- i ing ng told Mr Lees Frank rank E. E Lees i secretary to the defendant o put Mrs Richards Richards' name on the claim that she had worked a full month for or the state Ho He knew Mr Mrs Mr Richards was not entitled entitled to the money The law charges barges public servants with knowledge knowl- knowl edge dge of th the law Charges Charres Fraud Intent Mr Black said lack of at an employment employment em- em agreement between Mrs Richards and the defendant showed Intent to defraud It It was natural for lor Mrs Richardso Richards to o go along with her husband on trips rips and natural for her to make his job as easy as she could but that is not not evidence evidence she worked forthe for tor the he state Mr Black said The assistant prosecutor referred to o the notebook which Mr Welling said aid had refreshed his memory regarding regarding re- re garding garding a trip to Fielding miles i away on the the- day Mr Richards said I he returned the check to I the defendant de Charges Ridiculed After five years he ho remembers I I he went to his farm on July 17 1931 Mr Jr Black said Mr Musser in the defense argument argument argument ment attacked the states state's case as ridiculous and flailed in particular the testimony of ot Mr Richards Richards story is fantastic Mr Musser told the jury His te testimony tIm tI- tI m mony ny and that of ot Mrs Richards is in conflict with that of at others The defense counsel accused Mr Richards of at lying and charged he had changed his testimony regardIng regardIng regard regard- Ing lag dates Challenges RichardsOn Richards RichardsOn On one ono hand is the assertion ofa of ofa ofa a man who admitted he induced a forgery against that of a man high in ecclesiastical and political honors Yet the state would have you belleve Richards ards and put the defendant in prison In his instructions to the jurors Judge McDonough reviewed the charges against Mr Welling and explained he is accused of at presenting present present- lag ing a false claim to the state board of examiners with intent to de de- de- de fraud He Ho admonished the jury It must be bo satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendants defendant's guilt before return a n verdict of guilty Must lUnd Have Been Proved Not one but all allegations in the I information must have been proved I to justify a conviction the tho judge said emphasizing that intent must have been proved It is not necessary to believe the defendant intended to divert the tho money to his awn own use but you must bo be satisfied ho he intended to defraud the state b before fore you may return a 8 verdict of guilty Judge McDon McDon- said Tho The jurors were told they may consider the testimony of character witnesses called by the defense Jurors Warned They were warned to disregard any testimony at Mr Wellings Welling's first trial except that read into the rec record rec record record ord at the current retrial I Possible bias and motives of at witnesses witnesses witnesses wit wit- nesses may be considered red Judge McDonough McDonough McDonough Mc Mc- Donough said The motion for a directed verdict was b based on numerous grounds chiefly that no evidence bad had been adduced to show the defendant had presented a false claim that there was no evidence to show intent on tho the defendants defendant's part to defraud the state and the that state had failed to provo prove commission of a crime or material allegations of the Information Information information tion against the defendant Blacks Black's Reply Argul Arguing against the motion Parnell Parnell Par Par- nell nen Black assistant t district attorney attorney attorney ney declared that tho the salary claim In itself was evidence of at its falsity in that it accorded Mrs Mr Richards s a full months month's pay for services never contracted for He maintained the tho evidence was such that re reasonable men might differ differ dif dif- dif dif- fer on the question of the defendants defendants defendants defendant's dant's intent to defraud and that this question should hould bo be decided by bythe bythe by bythe the jury He argued Secretary WellIng WellIng Well Well- Ing knew there was no state appropriation appropriation to pay a person never em cm- The state and defense rested late Thursday after three rebuttal witnesses wit wit- nesses fleeces for tor the prosecution had bad been heard Denied Talk Mr Richards testified he be never had bad a conversation with Simpson Walton auto mechanic in a Salt Lake City garage in the spring pring of 1933 Walton a defense witness had testified that Richards told him he was a a state motor vehicle Inspector In Inspector inspector in In- that his wife was a g good od little inspector too and that she received for tor her services Clarence H. H Kinder owner of the garage garnge refuted Waltons Walton's testimony testifying had bad not been employed employed em em- until November 1934 and that he Kinder had never heard Richards Richards' make mako the statements Attributed attrIbuted attributed At at- to him by Walton Mrs rs Richards the third rebuttal witness denied having had any conversation conversation con con- about the Welling case with Mrs Ruth C. C Lamoreaux of Downey Idaho Mrs testimony was to the effect Mrs Richards told her sho she received for tor assisting assisting- her husband with his hi inspection work |