◆ SpookStack

matters which would otherwise ve incom tent he makes as to the understending he had with wre, tiietatie proof in question, th: t it ‘consists. of. tastiaoay of witnesses, 4, 2 Mp7 2d Se, ee aeendihel ~ ky catsQls; 1 probebly would be bound in the trial of this ¢.39 by any agreement which was had with kr, | Usturhous in connection with tas proofs thet might be introduced in lisu of tha witnesses that the ‘pros2outor ‘rentioned, and 1 fesl that under those cirounstsnees i should not object to the sostimony. relative goto Se ee KR. varus: 1 will eay this, your, Honor, that at '. 1g a rethor amb: rrassing ‘thing for mo to have to mike oy ‘stotenent. in gaueral language here, what the ‘agresment was without Bee Osterhous proseat to corroborate Ate. q ‘would Bueh profer if he» could be recehed, because sonstines we lawyers think we have coe ugrasmeats and what wo have is misunderstendings, ‘So at he _ 8oR be reached. i would like to nave that ae i wouldn't want ‘to sssure tha ros, onaibility of ‘things on yy. s2yeso. eee ite gaboulss Lom porfeetly willing the prosecutor should procead with the ovidance on the stotemneats ts Tus ‘COURTS wold of course the situ’ tion te . thist ir. Osterhous has witharawa ‘from this C5385 he is not. _ eet conzect:é with it et ell, and agreements or anything else that | you had with him sre not Lincing on the res, ondent now, and | Er, kersons is responeivle 3 for the conduct of the defense of. this ense DOWe ot KR Pat sonSs “weld in vow of the nature of the to idaatify particular docuxents, ‘ond ‘in view of the fect ‘that it wili be necessary for the seople to csk for &@ continuance if 1 refuse to livs up to this agreement, and thet a continuanc> may m.ke 1¢ necessury for me to have at the trial, when resuned, Gertuin witnesses whos3 presencs here is voluctary, I - Vae