Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-02-19

Last week we reported the trial of the
case entitled City of Ironton VS.. Dennison
and Gallaher, and did not ''extenuate or set
aught down in malice" The evidence offer
ed by The prosecution demonstrated conclu-
sively the guilt of the defendants as charged.
This evidence the defendants did not deny
under oath or otherwise. 1t is true, as a
matter OF law, that when the defendant IN a
criminal prosecution fails or refuses to Of
fer himself a witness in his own behalf,
his failure or refusal cannot be referred to
oy the prosecution; but this rule does not
bind ye editor in his structures upon the
facts OF the case. We assert again, the proof
was conclusive, and the Mayor, city attorney
and citizens who listened to the testimony
were surprised-yes, amazed-at the ver-
olct. The verdict can only be accounted for
on the theory, that the jury lost sight of the
guilt of defendants and tried Mrs. Riley for
bad character. The jury was selected and
sworn to try the case against the defendants,
under the ordinance and evidence, and not
Mrs. Riley. If Mrs. Riley was guilty of an
oHense, that could and should have been
reached by another proceeding. The wit
nesses who testified that the reputation of
Mrs. Riley for chastity was bad, also stated
that they had never heard her truthfulness
questioned. We think Mrs Riley's charac-
Ter cannot be justly pleaded in behalf of
those who frequent her place, if it is such a
place as the attorney for defendants repre-
scented. Mr.. Walker in his card this week,
writes ostensibly to reprove criticisms; to
lament over the wickedness of edit Ors, off,
GERS and citizens generally, for refusing to
remain quiet about Il verdict not warranted
by the evidence, and one that, we take it, he
dld not expect himself, and had no right, as
a good lawyer, to expect. Before he closes
his lecture on criticism, he accuses editors,
officers and citizens of shielding MIS-. Riley,
without offering scrap of evidence to sup
port his charge. We believe the officers of
this city are honest, that they have never
protected Mrs. Riley from the clutches ofthe
law, and that they are not doing now.
We kROtc the editors are not engaged in thar
business. We say now that if Mrs. Riley is |
guilty of an infractron of the law, prosecute |
her, and if the evidence produced against |
her is as plain and conclusive as 1t was in |
the case of the Black River rovers, and the |
Jury acquits, we will express our opinion |
without fear or favor. In regard to Mr.. |
Walkers charge against the citizens of |
lronton Wen say that he is a component |
part of the term "citizens" as applied to this |
city, and if he is so well informed, he should |
give the officers of the law the benefit of his |
and have Mrs. Riley prosecuted |
at once. Vested with this important evil
dence, he owes it to himself and to the city,
to help remove therefrOm this "blOt upon
her fair fame'-this ''menace to society,""
Ii the officers then allow Mrs. Riley to
Iun a house of the character he states,
without trying to convict her, 60 for them.
When the gentleman offers as much testi-
nony to support this charge, a was offered
Dy the prosecution, showing the guilt of
Dennis0n and Gallaher, we will, unlike the
Jury in that celebrated case, move a convic-
ion at once. We are in favor of the enforce
nent of the ordinances of this city against
Ill who seek to disturb her peace, and none
he less against marauders from the border.
We regret exceedingly that the city should
nave to pay $50 or $40, while the guilty par
les go 'scot free"