OCR Text |
Show DISBARMENT OF UTAH ATTORNEY Salt Lake, July 1. City Detective "William Zeese's lack of memory provoked pro-voked several sensations yesterday in the first ddy of the disbarment proceedings pro-ceedings instituted by the Utah State Bar association against Attorney Wll-lard Wll-lard Hanson on a charge of unprofessional unprofes-sional conduct. "I cannot recollect at this time," was the detective's stock answer to tho questions of Attorney General Barnos, conducting the prosecution, about sums of money alleged to have been paid by Willard Hanson to Zeese and other detectives to insure "protection" to confidence men in the year 1912. Zeese excused his bad memory by saying that his heart bothered him. Ills head ached and he didn't want to incriminate himself. Attorney General Gen-eral Barnes finally became exasperated exasperat-ed at the failure of the witness to remember re-member anything, and appealed to Referee E. O. Lee, before whom the evidence is being taken, to compel the witness to make direct answers to questions. Threatened With Jail. -Referee Lee had become exasperated, exasperat-ed, too, and threatened to cast Detcc- , tlvo Zeese into jail until such time , a his memory revived. The referee, after listening to tho witness' an- ; swera for several hours, expressed the ; belief that the detective was not entirely en-tirely sincere In l""s profession of lack of memory. "The attitude of this witness all day," said the referee from the bench, "leads the referee to believe that he is not a truthful witness when he says continually that he cannot remember. The referee feels that he has the power pow-er to commit the witness to jail until such time as he can remember, or recommend his commitment to the supreme court. The referee then ordered the detective detec-tive to answer "yes" or "no" to the query of Attorney General Barnes if Zeese had not told the attorney general gen-eral previously that he had received sums of money from Hanson as "protection" "pro-tection" to swindlers. "No, I did ubt," said Zeese, when thus ordered. Zeese also answered "no" to the question as to whether he had ever received re-ceived sums of money at any time from Mr. Hanson. Almost every minute of the day there was acrimonious conflict between be-tween Zeese. and the attorney general and between the latter and Soren X. Chrlstcnsen, counsel for Willard Hanson. Han-son. The attorney general and Mr. Christensen had repeated legal arguments, argu-ments, in which sarcastic personal references ref-erences were exchanged. When tho referee ordered Zeese to answer "yes" or "no" to questions of the prosecution, the witness and Attorney Christensen voiced strenuous strenu-ous opposition. Mr. Christensen argued ar-gued that Zeese could, within his constitutional con-stitutional right, refuse to answer questions which might Incriminate him, and asked that Zeese might have opportunity to engage counsel of his own to advise him. Zeese vociferously vociferous-ly seconded this plea. He charged that he had not received a "square deal' on the witness stand |