Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-03-03
ALDERMAN SCHAFER'S DENIAL.
He Says He Got No Money From John A.
Martin for Fines-Martin Says So Too
Some Contra dictions.

He Says He Got No Money From John A.
Martin for Flnes-Martin Says So Too
Some Contra dictions.
The news in the situation growing out of
those State suits against Aldermen Schafer
and Cassidy, to recover fines alleged to have
been imposed and collected by them for vio-
lations of the Sunday law, is that yesterday
Alderman Schafer denied ever having re-
ceived such fines from John A. Martin, and
that Mr.. Martin wrote the attorneys for the
prosecution, corroborating this denial, as
follows:
Yost q Rebman:
GENTLEMEN-I wish to explain to you that
all fines imposed on me by Alderman Schafer
were at the time remitted, the only money paid
him by me being the costs in the cases. This
explanation is due Alderman Schafer.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN A. MARTIN.
PITTsBURG, March 2
Alderman Schafer's denial was written
previously on a postal card, as follows:
FEBRUARY Is, 1889.
MY DEAR SIRs-I have no money for fines
in ]. A Martin cases. He will settle person
ally with Frazier, agent for Commonwealth.
Will see some day this week personally about
the same. Respectfully.
]. NJ. SCHAFER.
Attorney Yost, when interviewed and
asked to explain this seemingly paradoxical
state Of affairs, said:
The history of Mr.. Martins case is rather
unique. Last summer he was popularity known
as milk Shake Martin, by reason of his posi-
by Captain Wishart repeatedly for his Of
fenses. In two of the cases before Alder
man Carlisle he set up the defense
that after information had been made against
him by Captain Wishart and before his trial
before Alderman Carlisle, he had been prose-
cuted and tried before Alderman Schafer, and
had there paid fine and costs for the same Of
fense. Not taking any stock in this defense,
Alderman Carlisle fined him nevertheless.
Martin then presented his petition to the
Criminal Court in which he swore as follows
(after reciting his trial and conviction before
Alderman Schafer):
by Alderman Schafer an q receipt for the same
was officially acknowledged. iSee No. Is, June
On the trial in court he produced Alderman
Shafer's transcript, showing the payment of
the fine and cost, as he stated under oath in his
petition. This transcript we have, and it
certities that it Is q correct copy Of Alderman
Schafer's record.
But 10. and behold when we sue Alderman
Schafer for these fines, after repeated de-
paid to him, and Mr.. Martin, who so repeatedly
appealed to public sympathy during last sum.
mer on account OF the heavy fines he was pay
ing for Sunday violations, writes us letter
saying over his own signature that he never
paid a dollar Of these fines to Alderman
Schafer.
It matters little how Mr.. Martin and Alder
man Schafer adjust the difficulty between
them; but one thing is certain, either one or the
other will have to pay these fines to the Com
monwealth: and they amount to S225.
Copies OF the transcripts above referred
to were shown the reporter. In them Al
derman Schafer enters the results of those
Martin cases thus: "Fine and costs paid
same day (July ~; same day fine and costs
paid (August g.; fine and costs now paid
(August 49,"