N- Li. S" lu IK.
i i i yf
SEMI-WEEKLY EDITION- FOUR PAGES
VOLUME XXVI11
PLATTSMOUT1I, NEBRASKA, MONDAY, FEBHUAKY 22, 1909
NUMBER 183
journal
PLAINTIFF RESTS
IN DAMAGE SUIT
Defense Now Taking an Inning
In District Court
The attendance at the hearing of
'the Gering-Leyda damage suit yester
day afternoon was quite large, there
being much interest manifested in
the outcome of the case. A. N. Sulli
van was the last witness placed on
the stand at the time the Journal
went to press yesterday. The ab
stract of the testimony of the re
maining witnesses Is given today.
Jno. Cory, called, was a constable
in summer of 1908, and had a war
rant for Sam Beggs at that time.
When he arrested Beggs, a continu
ance was taken before the Justice and
a bond of $200 was given with Leyda
as surety. He heard a conversation
between Gering and Leyda, In which
Gering said, "There Is the man who
gave Beggs $25 to buy whiskey with"
or words to that effect. Leyda an
swered, "What are you going to do
about it." Witness also told of
charges made by Gering about Leyda
running a poker room in his office
and other heated expressions used.
J. C. York was present at the time.
On cross-examination witness tes
tified that Matthew and Henry Gering
and Leyda were all talking and were
not very choice in their language.
Witness made all three keep quiet by
threatening them with arrest.
Judge M. Archer followed Con
stable Cory on the stand and his tes
timony related principally to the rela
tion of the defendant Leyda to the
case tried before him wherein Sam
Beggs was charged with violating the
city ordinances, and In which Leyda
. went Beggs security for the fine and
costs. His ; testimony was' largely
corroborative of that of other wit
nesses in addition to identifying the
record in the case in his court.
A short recess was taken after this
witness pending the arrival of others
On his cross-examination by Mr.
Clark, the witness adhered very
closely to the story told on the di
rect. There was not a break or shift
in his testimony. When asked as to
why he had not given Glenn and
He spoke of the hearing in county
court of the plaintiff and contended
the state had made a prima facie case
or Mr. Gering would not have sub
mitted evidence in defense.
Quoting the statute relative to the
sale of liquors In violation of law as
applicable to Mr. Gerlng's case, and
argued at length upon that section
of the statute relating to the powers
conferred upon druggists under the
law. The court indicated a possible
difference of opinion on the question
by his questions.
Attorney J. Elmer Leyda argued
upon the question of malicious prose
cution and the right of parties to con
sult the county attorney to secure the
institution of criminal proceedings
He contended that In the case at bar
no connection between Leyda and the
when they called for it, he replied . . T ,
" I chnun Yi tit a ov lonia Ma a I o n a r
that he didn't know. He simply
could not say why he had given them
the wronk book. On re-dlrect, he
testified he though he had given them
the right record at the time and did
not know until later of the mistake.
His testimony was made the sub
ject of vigorous objection by coun
sel for the defendant at times but
it was generally permitted to go In
and greatly strengthened the case.
After his testimony Judge Travis
took a recess until nine o'clock this
morning.
The opening of the case this
morning found quite a group of in
terested spectators on hand. The
plaintiff went into the question of
the plaintiff's reputation as a peace
able, law-abiding citizen and his gen
eral reputation.
Dr. E. W. Cook, state physician of
the M. W. A testified Mr. Gering's
reputation was good. He had heard
rumors of his having sold liquor un
lawfully but principally since his ar
rest last July.
Geo. E. Dovey, merchant and pres
ident of the First National Bank, tes
tified in effect the same at Dr. Cook.
He only heard of the selling of liq
uors principally since last July.
Jacob Trltsch, vice president of
the Bank of Cass County, also testi
fied that he had known plaintiff
many years and that his reputation
was good. He had only heard of
the liquor trouble since July.
Jas. Robertson, clerk of the dls-
John C. Bates, a carpenter, was tnex court, lesunea as wie ouiers.
the next witness for the plaintiff. He had never heard rumors concern
Bates testified as to occurrences ing the selling of liquor by the plain-
which took place at the hearing be- tiff.
fore Justice Barr. corroborating the W. E. Rosencrans, county clerk,
fact of Gering accusing Leyda of run
ning a poker room in his office and
of his having paid Beggs money to
buy whisky and perjure himself. He
stated that the defendant wanted to
know of plaintiff what he was going
to do about it.
testified Mr. Gering's reputation was
good. On cross-examination he
stated he had heard about Mr. Ger
ing selling liquor after his arrest last
July.
W. D. Wheeler, ex-treasurer and
ex-sherlff. testified as to his ac-
shown by the evidence. He also ar
gued briefly upon the question of the
law regarding druggists' permits.
Attorney Gering, for the plaintiff,
contended that to accept the argu
ment of -defendant's counsel would
mean to prohibit absolutely the sale
of liquor by druggists for any pur
pose. Mr. Gering made an extended
argument to show the cases cited by
the opposing consel, did not apply to
the facts In this case. Upo the ques
tion of evidence, Mr. Gering contend
ed there was plenty of evidence con
necting Leyda with the case. Mr.
Gering reflected severely upon the ac
tions of County Attorney Rawls In
the case.
Gen. Jno. C. Cowln made a strong,
forcible and eloquent argument. He
contended Mr. Gering had never been
charged with selling liquor on Sun
day. He read the original complaint
filed In county court by County At
torney Rawls. He pointed out the
failure to show liquor sold on Sunday
and the efforts of the defense to shift
ground in the case. ,
He pointed out the difference be
tween a license and a permit. A per
mit simply meant the right to sell
liquor as a medicine. He spoke of
the absurdity of the contention that
druggists could not sell liquor on
Sunday. Gen. Cowin's argument was
an able and masterly one upon this
branch of the case. Speaking to the
question of connecting Leyda with
the case, he stated the fact of dis
missing the case against County At
torney Rawls and severely criticised
any public official who hired persons
to Induce others to commit crimes.
He referred to Ley-da's connection
with Beggs and stated he did not be
lieve Mr. Rawls would have done as
he did. Reviewing the testimony he
contended there was plenty of testi
mony in the case to connect Leyda
with the case.
Attorney Clark replying to Gen.
. quaintance with plaintiff, and that his Cowin sought to show that no connec-
Bates had been fined $50 by Judge Bood
Attnrnpv i iarn nn ins ci oss-exain- i i ..... , ... ,..
. Vht the fnrt that reputation prior to July 7, 1908, was "on naa ueon snown ooiween neyu
illation brought OUt the fact that ' ,! anv unlawful art. hut contended
I 1 -1 I LI.. J.... .. 1. It
t- it 1 ai. I I U)IH flflillK IIIH III1IV an U UUUI1L'
, , . il. Inor fall nnrl that HlP LI JiaWKSWUriH, IUTIIRT HliytMlII- " " '
Archer during last all and that the the spirited citizen. Mr. Clark argued
piainun wno was uih. ui , . ., wht he contended was the
u ltnewa m" miRi"" u rx-ruuiuy luiiiuus-i ---
pointed out the dif
i-i ii rtrt TIia
suspenueu uie ime. i u, . . law In the case.
stated that the fine was PnleH Travis
. ., , a a ance with the plaintiff, and that his Juage iravis
(luring gooa ueuuwui nl,u DUa-u w.n - hot went, n rharre of Kelllne
he had behaved ever since and had reputation was gooa. un cross-ex- '
animation ne stateu mat ne naa -
j . i - i hi I nnrnnHpH nther than medicinal, moch-
Adnlnh Plene a saloon keener at Iluura r"l"ors oi 'r. uerius eiimg
Adolph Giese, a saloon Keeper at . chem(,a, pUrp0Hes. As
Fifth and Main streets testified """"" '" - t. ,,,,,. nh' nnt .
rest. He nan never neara sucn ru- - --
. . . ... mora nrevlnna l'"S c8p. JUQge iravlB din 1101 ICCI
111HB UIIU llltll UU Hie c.ciliiib ui wuij - . . . , ,,,- ,u ,,., n
J. v. I orK, oaruer, canea iesii- p""1-i
fled as to conversation between plain- had been trying tne case uncior a
tiff and defendant last July In Jus- fa'e understanding of the case. He
tlce Barr's court. Witness related 01'1 not sustain the motion of the
to plaintiff coming Into the room defendant to direct a verdict for him
and eharRliiK defendant with fur- Attorneys Leyda and tlark made
nlshlng money to have him indicted, a desperate fight to save the defend
Defendant called plaintiff a liar and basing their attack upon the
; o o f th. or dTn;r ThU de- wltne- thought added an oath to It. Petition of plaint.ff as applied to the
eloped on cross-examination. nrad Schlater. the well known evidence adduced.
1 ,., j I ,ij t...i rr' ..! . . V . . . i. .. . 1 t
Inl. ,. p nntps was re-called by the merman ciuzen unu piuiu-i, itim-u juubc j i avi iihiuBui uie i iiiiuh
defendant and asked whether the testified his acquaintance with stated a cause of action and there was
fine hH been m.snended or remitted. Plaintiff. Flaintirr s reputation was evidence to ue weignea oy tne jury
He stated he understood It had been K00" witness couian t want a oeuer ne overrun me motion to uirect a
neighbor. verdict.
I i a j. ni 1. A i. ... A
Henrv R. Gerlne the nlalnttff. was The plaintiff rested at 9:.10 a. m. Auomey v-iarK men u u
" " I ... I ... 1 1 L 1 LI.. A AA il.. Al A..
the next witness called and he made The defense Immediately sprung wunuraw n.s resi nuer u.e niouon ki
an excellent one for his side of the a sensation upon the court and the direct a verdict had been overruled
.... ... . . m I i i ii.. j. I flnn f'nu'ln annlrit lirwflv in nliwiff
rno lie in lit the Htorv or ins lire I crowd nv announciiiK uuu uih ue- .x. j. . .
4, Beggs had stated to him In his
place of business, "we will fix Mr.
Gering." lie inquired why and Beggs
answered: "For selling booze on
Sunday." Witness could not remem
ber whether or not he had testified
to this conversation at the hearing
In county court and recalled It now as
In this city, the extent of the busi
ness done by his firm and also of the
details of the damages which he con
sidered the prosecution of the case
against him In county court had
Rawles went Into the details con
periling the filing of the ense ngalim
Gering. He remembered Iteggs entil
ing to him In .lu lie ami telling him lir
fendant also rested and would Intro- Ing to withdrawing his rest, am
duce no evidence In the case. spoke of counsel being surprised at
iltnrnov rini-U nked tn hit VP the Beggs" testimony. tiell. Cowltl
Jury excluded while he argued one thought counsel surprised at all th
Instruction. This was done nnd Mr. testimony In the ens.
mused him. He eave bin version of CInrk at once ti Uliced Into his ar- 1"P ueiense opened meir SKI" o
the several conversations with Leyda gument. lie ndmltted the plaintiff the case by enlllng former Count
I., ,llfff.i-et. ri.inta nnd .entitled nnul. hnd made a imcid rawe nf niallre. He Attorney Rawls to the Stand. Mr
lively that be saw the defendant argued that no ponnertlon had been
whispering to the county uttorney shown between Leyda nnd the pounty
during the progress of that henrlng. attorney who filed the complaint
Mr. Gering also Identified the regis- He spoke of Leyda's connection with
ter containing the report of the sale Beggs and contended defendant had could pet liquor of Gering nnd tnlk
of liquor to Beggs ns also the one done no more than was the duty of Ing over n prosecution of plaintiff
whli h was shown Glenn and Carter any citizen. He contended that with him. lie testified him that In
when thev called. The latter rep- Leyda had committed no unlawful would have to have other evidence
ord wns nn old one for the year 1 907. act while he charged the plaintiffs than his mere word. This was about
On the whole Mr. Gering told a dl- petition with admitting a crime. June 6th. At Hint time Beggs said
rect and forcible at times, dramatic Arguing upon the question of con- he had a bottle of whisky, lie re-
utorv of the proceedings In the splrary, Mr. Clark rgued that Rawls' Mated elrcunistnnces surrounding
nine. He was examined on the direct connection with the case wbh Lpyda'n connection with the phbp and
by den. Cowln who fully lived up I vital, and the charge of conspiracy exonerated Leyda from any connec
to his splendid reputation as a trial must fall unless this connection be Hon with the case prior to Its trial,
lawyer. shown. He denied Leyda advised with Mm
during the trial and presented his
side of the case in such a manner as
to show that het (the witness) acted
throughout in good faith and in the
line of his duty.
He was cross-examined by General
Cowln who delved closely into his
testimony. He laid particular stress
upon what transpired at Gering's
store when Beggs went after the
liquor. He testified Beggs told wit
ness that Gering required of him
"Don't you know that this Is Sun
day?" and that Beggs answered "I
do." That Beggs also told Gering
his name. Witness reluctantly ad
mitted he had told Beggs he ought
to get the whiskey. Witness testi
fied as to Glenn and Carter going af
ter the liquor register and they told
him that they did not see Beggs'
name registered, and they did not see
the register for 1908. Witness de
nied having told Beggs to "see Ley
da. He is acting in this matter."
He knew that Leyda had seen Beggs
at Manspeaker's barn. He couldn't
recall when he first received Infor
mation about Leyda seeing Beggs, but
It was before this trial. Gen. Cowln
severely questioned the witness as to
Ieyda's actions in the matter. CloBely
questioned as to Beggs getting money
from Leyda, witness did not know
why Leyda gave it to them, but
guessed it had some connection with
getting the whiskey. Asked as to
saying to Beggs, Leyda will be up to
see you today and he will tell you
what to do and all about It," witness
denied It. Witness never told Beggs
that Leyda would pay them money.
Witness had paid them money and
had signed a $10 note for them. The
cross-examination by Gen. Cowln was
one seldom heard in this city and a
very brilliant one.
On re-dlrect examination witness
testified he had asked Begfgs what
representation he had made to
Gering when he got the liquor and he
gave the answer Indicated In his di
rect examination.
Gen. Cowln here went into the
length of tlnje witness had known
Beggs and received the Information
he had known bin. biiue the forepart
of June. He knew little of him ex
cept by hearsay.
The probabilities are the case will
reach an end sometime during this
afternoon and go to the Jury either
tonight or tomorrow morning.
Satunlay'H Session.
The Gering-Leyda damage suit
esterday developed several interest
Ing features, these occurring after the
edition for the paper for yesterday
had gone to press. The chief of these
was the examination of the defend
ant by Gen. Cowln, Mr. Leyda taking
he stand and giving his version of
the case as stated in the abstract
Gen Cowin's cross-examination was
searching and developed several
things of Interest In the matter and
materially aided the prosecution
There was much Interest in the case
manifested and the attendance was
quite large.
T. W. Glenn was called and related
the circumstances of the visit which
he and T. H. Carter made to the drug
store of the plaintiff In this action.
He testified that the record they
eventually saw did not show the
name of Sam Beggs on it as having
purchased liquor of the plaintiff in
July 1908. He stated that he asked
for tho 1908 record but that It was
not Bhown him. " The two men re
turned to the office of County At
torney Rawls and told him of their
failure to find Beggs' name on the
register. This was the essence of his
testimony.
Cross-examined by Gen. Cowln the
witness was uncertain as to many of
the Incidents of the matter and ad
mitted an unfriendly feeling toward
Mr. Gering. Gen. Cowin's examin
ation weakened the testimony of the
witness very materially.
T. M. Carter called, testified he
was 73 years of age and knew all
the parties. He accompanied Mr.
Glenn to Gering's drug store on
July fl, went at Mr. Glenn's request
and not the county attorney's. Clerk
Ht the store told them the would have
to see Mr. Gering. They called an
hour later when Mr. Gering gave
them what purported to be the regis
ter for 1908, after searching for It
for some time. The two examined
the book nnd found on the page
which was supposed to lie the right
one, no record of any Intoxicating
liquor to anyone. They left nfter--losing
the book. Mr. Gering re
marked "If other people did not sell
more than he did there would be lit
tle sold." They proceeded to the
county attorney's office and reported
to him Hint they found no record of
the sale of liquor to Beggs or any
one pIho In June nnd July, 1908.
On CroHB-exnmlnntlon by Gen.
Cowln, the witness fnlled to Identify
the register shown him by counsel
as the one shown him at the drug
store.
John M. Leyda testified he was one
of the defendants. First met Beggs
on July 4th near Manspeaker's
baru.
The witness had proceed this far
when he saw Beggs In the room and
asked him to be excluded from the
room. This lead to a wrangle be-
ween counsel over excluding Beggs
but he eventually remained in the
room, i
Witness then went Into details
as to how he came to meet Beggs,
asking Ralph Beggs if Sam Beggs
was present. Ralph answered he was
his brother was there. He
asked Sam If he had been getting
whiskey from Gering In violation
of law. He said he had, and witness
told him he understood he would be
a witness against Gering and if the
This was vigorously reslsed by coun
sel for the plaintiff as Beggs was la
the room at the time and could be
produced. Attorney Matthew Gering
made objections and made a strong
and forcible argument against such
procedure. He cited various casea
decided in this court on tho same
proposition.
Attorney Clark sought to introduce
evidence merely to show the evi
dence In the lower court was suffi
cient to warrant holding the plaintiff
in this case to the district court and
Justified the county attorney In bring
ing the action.
Gen. Cowln In opposition to the of
fer made an argument against it
which was was logical and masterly.
Attorney Clark made a further
argument seeking to sustain his of
fer as did Gen. Cowln la opposition.
Judge Travis after the argument
atter was violating the law he announced that he would not pass
wanted him punished. Sam wanted l,Pn the question involved until In
to know w hat there was in it for he morning and, In deciding the case
him. Leyda told him that he could would decide it as though the wit
not promise him anything. He never np88 Neggs was in the room when
told him to go to Manspeaker for 'ourt convened. A recess until 9
money. Witness first learned from o'clock today was then taken.
L. Pickett something which nev- When court opened this morning
er got into the testimony ns the court t the usual large crowd of specta-
ruled It out. He had never talked tors, Judge Travis announced thnt
to Rawls about It, and did not as- the objection of plaintiffs counsel to
sist In prosecuting Gering. The two the introduction of Sam Begg's tes-
Beggs' called on him on July 6 and timony In tho lower court was sus
wanted money and he told them to tallied. The defendant excepted to
come in, In the afternoon and he the ruling.
would see what he could do. He then Henry R. Gering, the plaintiff, was
called on Mr. Rawls who told him recalled to Identify certain pages in
what the Beggs had done and about the register of liquors sold for June
the liquor they had bought the day and July. These pages were offered
before. Witness paid the Beggs' $10 In evidence by the defendant. An ob-
that afternoon. Witness had not Jectlon by Gen. Cowln was sustained.
conferred with Rawls and Beggs as Later an offer of the entire book was
to the prosecution of Mr. Gering. admitted over the objection of plain-
Witness denied ever stating that tiff. An offer of certain pages of the
"we want to get the S of a B " register which Glenn and Carter look
or words to that effect and that ed at was offered and objected to by
"we'll file a complaint this after- plaintiff. The pages were admitted
noon." Witness went into details on the ground that defendant was
concerning the giving of the note to entitled to 'discuss their contents be-
hlm by the Beggs'. WltnesB never fore the Judy.
stated that the note was a blind as Another record of sales of liquor
testified by Ralph Beggs. Witness during 1908 was offered by defendant
never stated "we are going to have and after a protracted argument be-
Gerlng arrested." Witnessed" not tween counsel the plaintiffs objep-
know where Ralph Beggs was at the tion was overruled.
time he had the conversation with T. W. Glenn rcealled by plaintiff
Sam Beggs, but he was not near testified he had called at Gering's
them. Witness never advised the store and examined registers, of his
county attorney about the conduct own volition. Witness coul l not
of the trial of Gering nor did he go Identify the register shown him
to the county attorney's office at among those on tho table.
noon. C. A. Rawls. recalled by the nlaTiT
On cross-examination by Gen. tiff, knew Jno. H. Becker. Asked If
Cowln, witness admitted he did not be had told Mb. Becker shortly after
feel kindly toward Mr. Gering. In the hearing of Mr. Gering In court,
fact he had an unfriendly feeling that a prominent democrat was back
toward him for a year past. Emnlty of the prosecution, witness stated
made no difference In his treatment that was In effect that was true. Wit
of Mr. Gering. Gen. Cowln dramat- ness asked if Leyda wus a prominent
Icnlly forced from the witness that democrat, answered he couldn't, so
he would not probably have lonned consider him. lie referred to Leyda
the Beggs the $10 he did except having run for olllce several times on
that they hnd secured the liquor in the democratic ticket. The effort of
the ease. Witness swore he did not Gen. Cowln to locate who the prom
tell Beggs to go to Gering's and get Inent democrat was failed, because
liquor. Witness was acting purely of the faulty memory of the witness,
from a sense of public welfare and A.J. Beeson, county Judge, recalled
not from his personal feelings. Gen. by defendant, located Leyda In his
Cowln made a strong and pronounced court room at the time of the hearing
effort to show the witness hnd writ- of Mr. Gering In his court. On cross-
ten articles for various newspapers examination he could not say that
and that he had Inspired others at- defendant had not sat by the county
tacking Mr. Gering, but witness de- attorney during the hearing.
nled this. Defendant rested his case at 9:45
Mr. Rawls was recalled was asked and Earl Travis, court reporter.
why he hnd dismissed the case called In rebuttal by plaintiff, testi-
brought against Sam Beggs by Mr. fled he took notes of the hearing of
Gering in which ho wns charged with Henry R. Gering in the county court,
obtaining liquor by false pretenses, and the plaintiff Introduced the evl-
He answered It was because he deuce given by T. W. Glenn In the
thought there waB not enough evl- lower court, for the purpose of imp
donee to secure a conviction and he caching his testimony In this case'.
believed Beggs was being persecuted. The defendant also read from the tes-
Ell Manspeaker, deputy sheriff, timony given on direct examination
testified that he hired Beggs to work to corobornte tho testimony ho had
for him on July 4 and let him go on given In tlhs trial. The court sus-
the next clay Sunday, paying him $2 tained rib objection to this nnd ended
for his work. He further testified the attpmpt tot roroborate Glenn's
that Beggs had brought him liquor testimony.
which had come from Gering's drug T. W. Glenn recalled first seen
store, lie never told Beggs to go to Beggs In the latter part of June when
Gering's and get liquor. Beggs had he called at the home of witness,
brought him liquor In June which he Beggs left and witness left his home
had taken and kept, and afterwards afterward. This wns on Sunday,
he had turned the liquor over to nbout 9:30 In the morning. Witness
Beggs nnd Rawls who were together, did not know where Beggs went, but
Beggs got the liquor. Beggs asked saw him later at Manspeaker's barn
for It. Witness locked the whiskey und went with hi in to Gering's store.
In the safe. A humorous feature of Beggs told witness he wns going to
the case developed when the witness get whiskey. Witness examined
n ml Attorney Gering locked horns on Beggs' pockets to see If he had liquor.
the liquor question. The counsel I le did tills to see If Gering was sell
for plaintiff. Mr. Gering. tried to Ing whiskey. Witness knew he would
show the Interest of the witness by i be asked If ho had made this exnmlna
reason of his being the Jailor und
for having his Mils for boarding city
prisoners cut down by the action of
the city, while Mr. Henry Gering was
mayor, but wiih unable to show this.
The defendant offered In evidence
the police court record showing that
tho fine In the Jack Hates case hnd
been remitted by Mayor Gering.
The defendant then sought to have
Court Reporter Earl Travis sworn
and have blm read the testimony of
Sam Beggs glvf n In the county court
tion In case Gering was arrested.
Possibly the county attorney hnd nsk
ed blm to make this examination. An
objection hy the defense that this wus
Improper cross-examination was sus
tained, as was much more offered by
the plaintiff.
Attorney Goring made nn offer to
show tho blus and prejudice of tho
witness. Judge Travis severely ro
buked Mr. Gering for his Insistence
In the matter.
(Continued on Third Page.)
