Evening Republican, Volume 20, Number 107, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 May 1916 — DR. RICE NOT DRUNK ON 11TH OF FEBRUARY [ARTICLE]

DR. RICE NOT DRUNK ON 11TH OF FEBRUARY

Jury After Five Hours’ Deliberation iFrees Roselawp Doctor and Trustee of Charge. The case of the State of Indiana vs. Dr. C. M. Rice, of Roselawn, the physician and township trustee.of that place, was tried by a jury and Judge Hanley Wednesday. It was quite a law suit, with two youiyj lady school teacehrs and a young man named Gundy testifying that on the occasion of the Lincoln township spelling match on February 11th at Roselawn Dr. Rice was so drunk that he staggered and mumbled and could not talk and two other young lady school teachers and a number of other persons testifying that Dr. Rice was as sober as a judge and that he did not stagger, that there was no odor of liquor on his breath and that they saw nothing unusual about his conduct. Dr. Rice has practiced medicine at Roselawn for the past ten years and at DeMotte for five years before ne went to Roselawn. He graduated from the Barnes Medical College Tn St. Louis in 1901. He-has an extensive practice and is regarded an excellent' physician, but for a long time his name has been associated with the liquor habit. His reputation has reached out a considerable distance and many in Rensselaer have talked about his habits. He does not deny that he drinks some and when he took the witness stand in his own behalf he said that he drank some and that he usually drank Blitz or beer. Asked if he got drunk when he went to Chicago he said: “Not so bad but what I can get back to my hotel and take care of business.” The first witness for the state was Miss Marie Fettig, one of the school teachers for Dr. Rice, in the Roselawn schools. She and Dr. Rice have had some trouble. They don’t like each other. Dr. Rice says that Miss Fettig put him in a bad light by telling that he bought her $25 or $35 worth of “busy work” for her school instruction and the other teachers wanting to have an allowance. On the particular day in question, namely Feb. 11th, Miss Nina Mann and Miss Mable Maxson, two other teachers, went to Dr. Rice to talk “shop”. They told' him of Miss Fettig’s claim that she had been ai’owed so liberally for “busy work” and to show them that he had not authorized such expenditures he took t/.em to Miss Fettig’s school room. This was after the spelling match was over and all had departed. The school room is in the same building with Dr. Rice’s office but to reach it one has to go out of a side door of the office. They did this and as they entered the room from the front they saw Miss Fettig and Cleatus Gundy, her “feller,” in the rear of the room. According to Miss Fettig and Mr. Gundy the trustee was so drunk that he staggered against the desks, could not talk audibly and fell against the door as he left. Mr. Gundy when asked which side of the door he struck said that he hit first one side and then the other. ‘Miss Smary, who later went with Miss Fettig to the doctor’s office also testified that he was intoxicated, that she had seen drunk men before and that she smelled liquor on his breath.

Miss Maxson, however, and Mbs Weaver, two other teachers, said that he was perfectly Sober and rational. Mrs. Mollie Parks, Mrs. Henry Defrees and Mi*, and Mrs. Palmer Wiseman, in whose homes he had called, the two first named before the spelling match and at the Wiseman home at about 5:30 in the evening said he was sober. Mr. Weaver, the town barber, testified that he saw the doctor several times during the day, was in his office in the afternoon at or near 4 o’clock and that he was perfectly sober. He said his shop was in the same building with the doctor and that he had never seen him intoxicated and had never known him to take a drink. His eyesight was good enough to he a barber, too. Tump Eight, who had been in Fair Oaks that day, returned home at about 4 o’clock and visited Dr. Rice in his office. He said he was sober. He had seen him, however, when he was possibly under the influence of liquor. George Johnson, a school boy, also thought the doctor sober on the day in question, but he had seen him whetr he thought he was intoxicated. Miss Fettig' testified that Dr. Rice had sworn in her presence and in speaking of his wife had said to her: “Well, if you want to travel hi that t-ZZ' tP— class. all right!” The doctor' denied this but said he had told her that he supposed she would go to his wife and tell her he was drunk again. Miss Fettig also said that when she asked for a check Dr.

Rice had told her that he didn’t have to write any G d checks on Friday. He said that he used no such language aind that he did write the check in a hurray because he wanted to be alone. The evidence disclosed that A.l Clark, Fred Fuller and Bill Flatt were’ all loafers in the doctor’s office on the day in question and that he had talked freely with them about the “busy work” of Miss Fettig. None of the characters mentioned, however, were witnesses. Henry Christiansen, Fred Norris, Xu N, T. Whitten and other good citizens were here ready to testify that Dr. Rice was a user of liquor in case he tried to prove his own reputation, but he did not and they could not be called. The case furnished some amusing features, notably, when Prosecutor Sands tried to make Miss Weaver admit that there were some ences between she and Miss Fettig. She almost did so at one time but a second later declared that there were no differences, Prosecutor Hess and Mr. Sands spoke for the state and Hume L. Sammons, who was associated with Mr. Halleck for the defense, spoke for Dr. Rice. Prosecutor Hess told of the professional responsibility Dr. Ride owed the community and said that a conviction would be a blessing to himself and his family and to the community and would go a long way to bringing the doctor to a realization of his own condition. The jury retired at 15730 and the verdict wa3 arrived at at about 10:30. It is understood that proceedings are to be brought before the state medical board to try to derive "Dj. Rice of his license to practice medicine.