The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1878-09-12

in business and professional life, and in
their condemnation of every thing dis
honest and unfair. Honest men want
honest servants. Then upon these
promises that the people have right to
look to the character of candidates, and
to know their merits and dement's, and
also that only men of integrity are want
ed by all honest people | take it to be
proper to elucidate one incident in the
professional, or rather unprofessional,
practice of the Democratic candidate for
Prosecuting Attorney, Mr.. Ambrose
Leach, jr. The matter to which | refer
is this: Some months ago, and before
Mr.. Leach was a candidate, case was
tried before Esquire Roland, Of Jackson
township, in this county, in which Green
Hazelwood was the defendant. The case
was heard, the defendant fined, and part
or all of the costs paid. Mr.. Leach, who
was afterwards on the same day employed
| by Hazelwood succeeded in getting the
case opened up for new trial. The
prosecuting witness was called to the
stand, but before she could testify Mr..
Leach objected to her testimony on the
ground that he had witnesses there to
impeach her. 1t was suggested that the
proper time to impeach her was after she
had testified. But Mr.. Leach said the
proper time was before, for, argued he, if
she was allowed by the Justice to
testify then she could not be impeached,
because the Court would already have
her evidence; but if successfully i'm
peached before, her evidence would be
incompetent, and the Court would not
| hear 1t.
Now candor compels me to say that
Justices do not always know thoroughly
the rules of evidence and neither do
most lawyers. But the rule is we'll set
tied that witness cannot be impeached
until the witness has testified. A lawyer
who has gone through the a B. C. of his
profession knows that. Well, then, JUS
tice Rowland believing Mr.. Leach to be
an honest practitioner, and to have stated
the law correctly, sustained him, and al
lowed the impeachment testimony to go
in first. The case was decided in favor
of the defendant.
This leaves to Mr. Leach to choose be-
tween but two things Either that he
knew this rule of law and misstated it
purposely or that he did not know it
himself If the first, then he is dishon-
est in his practice, and if the second,
he has not the legal ability to
fill the office to which he aspires
or any other Office for which
any measure of legal ability is essential.
But let US get little democratic authori-
| ty on this matter, which is no less than
the Hon (O Porter DuHadway. And |
will remark right here by way Of paren-
thesis, that Judge DuHadway seems to
be taking a very active part in politics so
far as Prosecuting Attorney is concerned.
He occupies much Of his time in sitting
before saloons discussing this question
time that could be Much more advantage
ously employed as far as the people are
concerned in deciding some of the many
cases that have been in his hands for
months. He has not even adjourned the
May Term of Court in this county. With
all his glaring faults, Judge DuHadway' S
legal ability is questioned by few. Now
he says Of this action of Mr.. Leach, that
if Leach took such an advantage of the
Justice, he ought to be disbarred, or if he
| had no more sense thar to believe the
law to be as he stated it, he ought to be
| disbarred
This opinion of the Judge, while it is
perhaps a little roughly expressed, has
the merit of being so explicit as to leave
no doubt of its meaning, Which horn o
dilemma does Mr. Leach take The
facts as | have given them are substan
TALLY correct, and easily proven. Then
the question comes up, is Mr.. Leach the
kind of man the people of Jackson
county want for Prosecuting Attorney
A decisive negative answer will be given
in October. MARCUS.