Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 93, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 March 1910 — ARGUMENT FOR A NEW TRIAL [ARTICLE]

ARGUMENT FOR A NEW TRIAL

Made Wednesday Afternoon In the Bridge Bratt Caso. I NO DECISION AS YET BY COURT And Opinion Is Divided As to What This Decision Will Be ■ —Technical Errors In the Affidavit May ,Give Defendant Another Chance.

Argument in *the motion for a new'trial in the. Milroy township bridge graft case Svas takeh up at 3 p. m., Wednesday ana occupied the rest of the afternoon. Mr. Williams for the defense was assisted by B. D. L. Glazebrook of Knox, an able and polished attorney, who, by the way, is a cousin of Lee, I. A., and Miss Viola Glazebrook of Rensselaer. The usual stereotyped objections were made to the instructions of the court, etc., and then the real vital question in the matter was reached. The claim on which Mr. Bader was prosecuted, it seems, was signed “Winamac Bridge Co., by C. L. Bd’r,” and the affidavit charges Charles Bader with having filed the claim. While Mr. Bader has been called, Charles, Clarence and Clinton, it seems that his correct name is “Clinton,” and that he usually signs it “Q L.” Authorities were cited by Mr. Glazebrook to show that this was a fatal defect in the affidavit, and it is on this point that the decision of the court will hinge. The question of failure of the evidence to show any intent was also argued, also the sustaining of the objection of the state to defendant’s witnesses, the three county commissioners to answering the question, “what is the value of the bridge as constructed ?” Prescutor Longwell—whose health is never very robust and who was feeling especially poorly Wednesday—took up the argument for the state and made an excellent argument for that side. Before he had finished, however, he was seized with a sudden attack of heart failure and sank back into a chair exhausted, and had to cease. The court announced that all points for a new trial would be over-ruled except that of the form of affidavit, as to correct name, and was taken under advisement. . < The state relies upon Sec. 179180, of the Acts of 1905, which says 'that “if defendant be accused by a wrong name, unless he declare his true name before pleading, he shall be, proceeded against by tb name in the indictment or affidavit.” And “if he allege that another name is his true name, it must be entered in the minutes of the court, and the subsequent proceedings on the indictment or affidavit may be had against him by that name, referring also to the name by which he is accused.” z Up to yesterday noon the court had not ruled, on the matter, but will probably do so today.