The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1889-10-30
A. f" KYARD."
A Plea of Confession
and Avoidance Made.
''The Wicked Flee when
no man pursueth.'

In a communication appearing in today RE-
PUBLICAN, signed by 1. T. Siddall. he says he
never was employed by Maxson as assistant
Prosecutor in any cases except two. He admits
in the next breath that he did assist him in the
Kent pocket-pickng cases, but says that the
Mayor of Kent is responsible for that. Does
anyone suppose that the Court in appointing Sid
dali was so discourteous to ignore Maxson in
the matter and name an assistant against his
wishes? No one is foolish enough to believe
that The fact is Siddall was appointed because
Maxson wanted him. Had Maxson desired any
other assistant, the court would have appointed
him. Again Sddal says Wanzor Holcomb,
County Commissioner, employed him to assist
Maxson in the three murder cases. The Pros.
Attorney told the writer of this article that the
commissioners told him to go ahead and pick
out good man and they would sanction bis
choice. The idea that the Prosecutor would not
county SO verdant as to believe such silly
statement? Again, he says that the prosecuting
witness in the Furry caserequested that case to
be disposed of quietly. He says that he does
not believe Furry to be guilty. Furry thought
otherwise, for ne plead guilty. This was no,
torious case and the facts are that four ladies,
two of whom are school teachers in our public
schools, and highly cultured and respected
colored lady testified to having seen these indie
cent exposures. Why was ii necessary for him
to have plead guilty before Justice of the Peace
in Siddall's back office ard thereby secure a
nolle of the indictment in common pless cou.t,
thus throwing the costs there made upon the
people. Could not Furry just as 'quietly" have
pleaded guilty in the common pleas probate
court? Undoubtedly. in public print, Siddall
believes his client innocent What .ight has
prosecuting witness to request different dlspo-
sition of state case than that provided by law,
especially when such desired disposition results
in tbwartins the ends of justice aud charging
upon the people heavy bill of costs? Would
Maxson have thus nolled the common pleas
proceedings and thus quietly" disposed of the
mater, if the costs had come QUE of his own
pocket or if Siddall had not directed him SO 10
do? The facts connected with this shameful
perverson of justice speak louder than the pub
lie declaration of these two men.
Well might Siddall wIi!e 81 have always found
Maxson honest and ST :aiehr 10 ward Certsin-
ly. In the end the Prosecutor has a'ways COM
piled with Siddalls demands, but when slight
differences have arisen in their litigation ,Sddal
has expressed very different views In Ohio VS.
Folsom at the January term, 1881 ,Siddall OPEN
ly charged the Prosecutor with the dishonest use
OF official authority and of using the leverage of
criminal law at the peoples expense to enforc e
the collection of claim held oy him attorney.
This accusation had the desired effect. Boh
indictments against Folsom were nolled by the
Prosecutor at the peoples expense and the il n
and lamb laid down together. The relations of
these men is open secret in this county and
those unaquanted herewith need but examine
briefly their de. lings DUNG the Prosecutors S
term OF Office to ascel tain the real motives which
prompted them to rush into public print
| guilty conscience needs no accuser. By
ant'cipat ng he charges that appes IN another
column of ne PRsss. before they were publish
ed, ard before they could possibly have reached
| the of either Maxson or Siddall they tacitly
and fully admit all that is charged against E.
w. Maxson. Furthermore, the people have
! only to ask the prosecuting witnesses in the
Furry case, to be informed that they NEVER
requested this case to be nolled, and that any
statament to the contrary is groundless fabr-
cation.