The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-02-01

that II he could show that an offer was
made to Mr.. Kistner through his son, the
evidence would become admissible. Mr..
Fitzgerald replied that this was not the
casy. Mf. Campbell thereupon replleS
that he would in that case indict young
Kistner as an accessory. TO the crime,
which finally, however, was ruled out by
the Court. The testimony was thereup.
ON proceeded with.
Mr.. Wetterer stated that at one time
he had met Mr.. Kistner on Liberty street
didn't know who spoke fllst, told him
(Kistner) to go TO the house and get the
$25; never told him what the money was
lor, never offered. him bribe; all that
transpired concerning the matter was
between him ana young kistner.
Mrs. Wetterer, in her testimony, stated
that Kistner had come 10 the house at
one time TO ask about man discharged
at the W0rk-huu Sc, and at another for
the S25, he got ii and went away without
saying anything as to what Inc money
was for. believe, he said, II am much
Obliged" that is all.
Mr.. Kister sworn, testitied-That he
had resided i'll this CITY now Tor 30 years
never had any conversation with Wet
terer concerning the doing OF an official
act Tor money, nor with any one; my son
told me that Wetlerer owed him $50 and
that l should get it, never conVersed
with my son as to what the $50 was for;
met Wetterer on Liberty street; he spoke
first; tod Inc to go to the house to his
vile and get $25; nothing was said as to
what the money was for; went there be-
cause my son told me Wetterer owed
HIM $25; / never asked for compensation
for doing an official act from any one. In
the cross-eXamination the only point oil
interest offered was that Mr.. Kistners
son brought his father the petition OF
Mr.. Wetterer Tor an appointment as
Work-nouse guard, but never told him
anything else but 80 hand 1t in.
MIR. he man X stner's testimony in
brief was tnat he Herman Kistner) had
contracted the bargain with MIR. Wetterer
TO get HIM an appoini ment as Work-house
guard, and that tor this he was TO receive
500. He (H. Kistner), however, never
had said anything to his father about
this, but had merely handed him the pc.
lition of Wetterer to give in.
At this point the case was rested, and,
at the desire of the Court, Mr.. Campbell
exp essed his views. He stated, in
brici, that it was very disagreeable
task to him to state that there ought tC
be a convection in this case, nee he
had known the defendant SO long anC
regarded HIM as a man of good qualities
aside from THAT, however. the office EN-
trusted to himby the people as Prosecu
tor was such that in performing its du
ties as an honest man he would bt
obliged TO forget everything but his du
ties.
He next went over the testimony OF
feied, and concluded with claiming {
conviction, at the same time Offering hi
sympathy Tor the elder Kistner, but re
marhing,thaI he was not overburdenet
with that article regarding the son.
Mr. Fitzgerald thereupon arose ant
stated his views Of the case. He main
tanned that the defendant could not bt
held to be guflty without fastening thu
cnarge OF PERJURY upon his former goot
name, anu III god tnat the attack upoi
Llm was made by unprlncipled parties
for this purpose alone.
| Alter a sbOrtrepiy TO Mr.. FitZgerald's
assertions by Mr.. Campbell the case wa.
| closed. The Court, amer having affirmed
| the reluctancy he ielt in passing sen
tence, and alter having gone over all the
testimony, claimed conviction, and
lined the defendant $25 and COSTS.
Mr.. Fitzgerald hereupon asked for a
suspension Of the sentence in order tc
give him time to take the case. before tho
Court of Common Pleas on writ of er
ror. The appeal was granted and SO tht
cased ended. y