Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 75, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 December 1916 — STOCKTON TRIAL SUDDENLYENDED [ARTICLE]

STOCKTON TRIAL SUDDENLYENDED

When Judge Wason Found Errors In (he Indictment. HAD OVERRULED MOTIONS To Quash and the Case Had Gone fto Trial and Two Witnesses Had Been Examined.

The case of the state of Indiana vs. Jay W. Stockton, charging Mr. Stockton with perjury in testimony given (before some field examiners who had been called to Jasper county to look into the alleged hauling of some corn from the Jas'per county poor farm by teams of County Commissioner D. S. Makeever during the year 1915 and which corn alleged to have been hauled from said poor farm during said year had not been reported in the reports of the superintendent of the poor farm in sales of corn made during said year, came to a sudden end in the White circuit court Wednesday morning, when Judge Wason took the case from the jury and quashed the indictment after finding palpable error in the indictment.

The case was taken to White county on change of venue from Jasper on affidavit by the defendant and the general motion to quash was argued December 2, and motion overruled.

There was a great array of legal talent employed in this case, the state being represented by Prosecutor Hess of Kentland, Deputy Prosecutor Sands, W. H. Parkinson, Mose Leopold and George Williams of Rensselaer, Prosecutor Brockway, p. B. Sellers and Sills & Sills of Monticello, a total of nine attorneys, while the defense was represented by A. Halleck of Rensselaer, W. W. Lowry of Indianapolis and Palmer & Carr of Monticello, a total of fooir, or a grand total of thirteen attorneys on both sides. A large number of witnesses had also been summoned on each side, practically all those who testified in the recent Morlan trial here (charging a like offense) and quite a number of others who were not summoned in the former case. Among > the latter were Mr. and Mrs. Elizur Sage of Redwood Falls. Minnesota.

As near as The Democrat can gather the proceedings had in court were about as follows: The case came up for trial Tuesday and a jury was secured about 3 o’clock Tuesday afternoon. Bert Winters, deputy state examiner, took the stand Tuesday evening. Defense objected to certificate of appointment being introduced in evidence for the reason that it showed on the face of the certificate that Tie was appointed by the state examiner and not by the state board of accounts as alleged in the indictment.

The court stated that he was in doubt at this time on the question raised by the defense, and asked the state to produce some authority to enlighten him on the point raised. Further argument was had Wednesday morning and some authorities cited by the attorneys. The court then said that he was not entirely clear in the matter but had decided to overrule the motion of the defense.

After the examination of Winters, "Barton” Stout, the field examiner who administered the oaths to the witnesses examined here when the matter was investigated last February, was called to the stand and his certificate of appointment was presented. The defense objected to this testimony for the reason that the name in the certificate was not the same as that given in the indictment. The court overruled the objection, but a moment later stepped down from the bench and picked up the certificate and returned with it to his seat. After examining it he said: “I find the name in the indictment 'fearton’ Stout, and this certificate shows that it should be ‘Berton’ Stout. The case is withdrawn from the jury, jury discharged and the court quashes the indictment.” The whole thing came so suddenly that every one was stunned : for

the moment. The state’s attorney said that a new affidavit would be filed and, as the case originated in Jasper county, the defendant was asked to elect in which county he would be prosecuted, as the law provides in such cases. On advice of his attorneys who did not care to jeopardize any advantage gained the defendant declined to elect and the court placed him under SI,OOO bond, which was signed by Edgar S. Thornton as surety, to appear on the first day o£ the next term of the Jasper circuit court, and it is now uip to the state’s attorneys to file a new affidavit if they decide to go any further in the matter. While it is understood that the court has made his order to read that “the court sustains motion to quash heretofore filed,’’ the defense contends that the court had overruled its motion to quash some ten days before and that it had not since filed another like motion, that the jury had been sworn to try the cause, that witnesses had been examined and that jeopardy had attached, therefore the defendant cannot again be prosecuted on the same charge. The attorneys for the state contend differently, however.

These questions, of course, are matters that will come up later, but at present Mr. Stockton is not under arrest nor charged with any crime. He is merely under bond to appear on the first day of the next term of the Jasper circuit court.