Show THE JONES TRIAL THE EVIDENCE ALL IN IS 18 IRELAND A PERJURER AS WELL AS conspirator THE caye CALIE BEING ARGUED after the NEWS had gone to press last evening capt J W greenman Gre euman te testified I 1 went to the valley house on the of january last fur for tile the purpose ot of overhearing a conversation heard franks and Tre seuer talking ingin in an adjoining room I 1 lay down on the floor part ot of the time heard h 1 I ard say they wanted to know what was going on in the di brict court and they were willing to give a good price for the information knew Tie seders voice well had known him tor for ten years to mr brown I 1 was in the valle vallen house an hour or A a little liitle more fifteen or twenty minutes belore before pranks franks and came in I 1 was told the afternoon the service that would won ld be wanted of me franks said he make ina keany any promise until some sible party part appeared to guarantee the money jdonte remember that Franks su suggested any names of any he would atiz like as security am sure that franks did not mention jones name I 1 believe he did say he would like to have orson arnold ainold dont h know itow way tie be did dic I 1 it heard beard nothing between ireland and fi auks as to any reason they had for wishing to ten oi oison son aruold arnold I 1 recollect bringing in from the pen in a single bingle buggy instead qi of the i agular lagoa 1 them wanted him in a hurry I 1 tal ed about this ui matter atter some I 1 told him I 1 thought it oetter for him it if hy he made a clean ovlean breast of it tl tell 11 nim mm it was jones and not tam him they were after homr to mr dackson I 1 think thick the thewl name came in was wast 9 was IRS buiting a number of names ind and aslaug asking if they werl were behind him I 1 talked with when I 1 brought him in froid tro m the penitentiary on in my own responsibility I 1 hak no authority to make any promises deputy marshal T F smith was called and testified Lesti lied on the e evening of january I 1 was in the rear of a saloon aloon on firer first with du do auty franks later with marshal ireland 1 I saw no one in the room saw franks and jones come out of the back door and climb over a board fence they went down the alley till sapped uy oy another fence sud end the they back and went through the saloon to the street to mr air brown the yard ya id where re we all were is an alley fifteen or eighteen feet wide I 1 was about eight feet south of them as they came out ireland was fifteen feet from me still at the hole I 1 franks got on top of the fence an and d pulled dullea jones up I 1 had bad not beard of this matter before know the nature of their business ull I 1 went there with franks we then looked attrie atthe room and he made a hole bole half au an inch wide and an inch and a halt half long in the wall I 1 went out and tested the bole did not look through after I 1 came with ireland had not beard of this lnater whee when i t si signed franks bond mr brown are you yon worth objected t to by objection sustained witness to mr brown brow was a deputy deput about three weeks before jan before that I 1 was in the grocery business albert fischer W Quillen Jl JQ aillen james watson andu and C W I 1 testified to having ha ving seen franks and jones in the gem saloon ex marshal marhal ireland was recalled and te testified stifled 1 I was present at the examination ami natio n of this matter before the gom commissioner missioner dont recollect having seen a postal card with an n address written on it Tre seders memorandum i book boob was placed by me in the marshals safe the postal card was nevea never put in my possession to mr brown have not talked with franks and dickson of the mony in his matter commiss commissioner ioder mckay was sworn before he took the stand mr brown asked him it he be hadnot had not been in the court room while mr franks was testifying he replied yes mr brown then objected to his bis testifying as he had violated the rule excluding witnesses mr dickson said he was not aware during the morning that he be have to call the commissioner there was no violation of the rule t the judge ruled that ae aie might testify ahe he said he remembered the postal caid with the address upon it introduced as testimony before him his impression was that he had bad handed it to marshal ireland iceland he had bad looked for it since but coul coula I 1 not find it the prost prosecution cution that they rested their case and court adjourned to a in to today day this moru tull the prosecution obtained permission to recall E S A ireland iwho testified tied i 1 never revoked bevc ked the appointment of franks as bailiff before ne was appointed deputy marshal mr air brown objected as ahe the indictment charged F fbanks auks had been bribed as a deputy and not as bailiff franks nad iad ceased to act ad ad bailiff on may 1885 the objection was overruled by the court vad eod the testimony allowed to go 90 in to mr brown I 1 had him sworn n as bit bailiff iliff lie he was drawing pay as bailiff anil and deputy marshal both up to bhea I 1 went out of office I 1 have no ricord record ot of ois his appointment is as bailiff he never had a written commission prior to FA betas being appointed bailiff I 1 do not know how many 1 baad laad had appointed mr air brown moved to strike out tais testimony refused bythe by the court homr browd I 1 do not know bow many rom commissions missions I 1 had revoked thare less than live whose com omissions oais anis were an revoked pranks franks held two offices when I 1 transferred a man to guard I 1 revoked his op appointment int I 1 did not specially special ay F t tar him so i considered his demov removal I 1 f from court a al of his appoint appointment rhent they are paid different differently lk a guard gets more wages mr franks was changed to being a guard and ad received pay day as such I 1 re appointed him bailiff when he be came back I 1 told him he be was to be bailiff bai liff I 1 think he was sworn in but outdo do not know I 1 have nu no memoranda tn of it I 1 recollect appointing him do not know or who iwho was present pre seni I 1 do not remember the occasion ile he was brought ta in and set to work 1 E A franks recalled after I 1 was guard before I 1 was made deputy I 1 was vas not re appointed bailiff ireland said im m old commission was vas good enough I 1 was never re appointed appoint ea mr dickson opposed several of the requests made by the defense def ense for instructions co the jury and in his opening argument reviewed the testimony and asked the jury to convict tile the defendants fend fead ants i le he grand young followed for the defense bense he figued that it must be shown to constitute the crime that franks was a deputy at the time the agreement was made v aich had not been done on and therefore the defendants must L be acquitted as ad the charge in the indictment was dot no proven every good atan an would despise the despicable method by iceland pro curt cur d the of a crime ahr ib rime crime allet alleged ea to have bet n committed coni minted was not hill half so disgraceful disgraced ill as the ael i tion of I 1 ahe he marshal manhal and others with who because they were wag aint I 1 ng a tight light against a certain jass class of the people said to themselves abile performing perform int their dastardly work it dont make any adv difference what we ido do we are above reproach and WIB ae above finding out the officers were not j justified us titled in what they had bad done for i as judge zane baue had said the object of he law was to prevent crime not to induce men to corni commit nit it this afternoon M mr brown made his arg a ameni eat he thought the requests made ii U de by the defense in reference to charging the giuy as to the law should be granted ae of these requests which the district attorney had i opposed was easm in the language of the court tt itself self in tle the hampton case under these instructions instruction 4 marshal ireland and I 1 those with him were shown to be what they were in ini connection with this case luf informers spies spotters franks had bad told T that lie he was not a deputy but was in the private service of ireland this court had heli held that knowledge of the official position of franks was wag necessary essry when aen the demurrer to the indictment was overruled the evidence showed that the defendants did not have that knowledge khz bond that was pro cured for franks by ireland was not in accordance with the provisions of the poland lawit law it was in fact no bond at t all mr brown was still speaking as we went to 0 o press |