The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-11-19
PROSECUTOR HARDING TALKS.
He Protests Against Responsibility for Dismiss
sal of Liquor Cases Being Put Upon Him.

Judge Nortora statement that no acquitsal or
dismissal in liquor cases ever occurred in his
court without his consulting Prosecuting Attor-
ney Harding caused that officer to say, yester
day: II do not propose to have the responsibility
shifted to my shoulders. When the affdavits
came up from the Mayors court, on appeal the
technicaity was raised by the defense that the
afidavits did not specifically allege less guam
tity than a quart was sold Judge Norton asked
me to insert it. did so, and one of the cases
was taken to the Supreme Court as test ques
ton. The accused agreed that If the law was
held constitutional they would submit to pay
ment of the fines. The law was held constitu
tional, and the afidavits remained waiting &C
ton. One day an indictment charging saloon
keeper on Virginia avenue with selling liquor on
Sunday, came up The witness before the grand
jury said he bought whisky of the accused but
at the trial changed his testimony completely py
saying that it was Congress water he got.
Of course his acquittal occurred,
and Judge Norton being somewhat
out of temper that day turned to the clerk and
instructed him to enter motion TO quash all the
afidavits appealed from the Mayor. He did this
my protest. l said, What do you mean by
that, Judged He replied. mean to enter
uOtiOu 10 QudsH tH0S0 aluuhNltS OecauS0 Luoy are
not good Afterwards he said that he did not
expect to hold me responsible.
"As to indictments for violations of the liquor
law, not one has ever been quashed during my
term of Office. AS to the affidavts, they were
Of the form in use for years upon which Judge
Norton has been acting. All Of them
drawn under the same law, and mad been held
good by him. 1t is the custom for the judges
and baiffs of all the county courts to make up
the trial calendars. No liquor case has
been set for trial by Judge Norton OF his bailif
The calendar arranged with felony and
other cases that had to wait an opportunity
and set the liquor cases myself. If
Judge Norton is responsible for his action in fell
ony cases. see no reason why he should not be
responsible for the liquor prosecutions When
men came into court to plead guilty. always
consulted with the Judge, and an understanding
was had to the punishment if no trial took
place. When going into trial on plea of not
guilty, in any case, either for felony INSIDE
meanor, I tried it to the best of nv ability and
left the court to act as it saw fit uLder the law
and evidence.
''In liquor cases I always used the evidence
taken before the Mayor, if they began before
that officer, but on the same evidence on which
he would convict the court above would acQuit.
After Judge Norton asked the correction of the
first affidavit, all that came were Of that
form. My assistant in the Mayors court drew
them ND and am just as much responsible for
his actions as / am for my own in the court
above l consider it unprofessiona. to talk with
any judge after having tried the crime before
him. / have nothing but the kindest feelings
for Judge Norton. but expect him to stand On
his record as am willing to stand on mine"