| OCR Text |
Show KYTKA CASE NOW UP BEFORE DISTRICT COURT The case ol Theodore Eytka against Weber county, in which the plaintifr seeks to recoer $2500 as expert witness wit-ness feo for alleged services In the J. H. Martin blackmail cases, was set for hearing in Judge Harris' division divi-sion of the district court today, but, the court being engaged in hearing the Stac. case, it was continued un til Wednesday. It will be recalled that the plaintiff in this case is an expert on handwriting handwrit-ing and deciphered the handwriting of Martin in comparison with the handwriting in certain blackmail letters. let-ters. He testified that they were the same. Mr Kytka staled on the witness wit-ness stand that, "the hand that wrote he standard letters was the hand that Wrote the blackmail letters ' The standard writings were the handwriting handwrit-ing of Martin, acknowledged by him. Kytka took numerous photographs of the standard writings and also of the blackmail wntiuga enlarging the letters 50 and 100 times, and. by expert ex-pert analysis, showed to the jury the similarities found in the two writings. writ-ings. He was on the witness stand about, two weeks and testified very completely as to the handwriting iu question. ror his services he charged 5-25 and 50 a day and expenses while away from his home in San Francisco. Including car fare and Pullman accommodation The plaintiff contends that thfj county commissioners, county attor ney, David Jensen, and district attorney, attor-ney, John C. Davis, entered into an agreement with him that he should be paid the price which he annouuce6 In his complaint for hit services in the case. On the other hand, the county com misRiouers and Mr. Jensen state that, no such agreement was had aud that there is no authority in the Btatute books for the payment of expert wlt-i ness lees The county commission ers contend that they would be liable on their bonds were the to allow the K tUa claim District Attorney Davis stated this morning that the cpiestion to be et tied will he whether he; as district attorney, had the right to engage the expert m the prosecution of the case, and. if so. whether th- board of com-I com-I missloners should not bo required to ' pay the bill About the only testimony testi-mony to be offered Will be on th question of agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants respect ing his services in the Martin oa?. The law of the case will be given greater attention The commissioners commission-ers have engaged Hie services of Attorney At-torney John G. Willis to assist Couir ty Attorney J E. Evans in their defense. |
