The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-11-30
CHARGES AGAINST RITTER
What the Defense in that Libel Suit Had
10 Offer in Justification.
Not q Heavy Showing of "scoundrelism"-Two
Murder Cases Reversed by the Supreme
Court-Mrs. Scanlon's Damages.
At 10 o'clock yesterday morning the cur

At 10 o'clock yesterday morning the cur
tain arose. in the Circuit Court, on the Rit-
ter-Hinkle combination. The first scene
was the offer, on the part of the defendants
attorneys, to prove that Mr.. Ritter had
been unfaithful To the cause of his clients.
and had, to say the least. acted in an I'M
professional manner. The evidence was
promptly objected to by s. NJ. Shepard. at
torney for Mr.. Ritter. and the entire morn
ing was consumed IN the arguments of the
attorneys. Judge Bartholomew held that
the evidence was admissible. and the
defense produced their witnesses. One OF
the statements contained In the alleged
libelous circular was that The Is the most
c~onsummate ~scoundrel l ever met in twen-
ty-five years business experience" The
defense have raked up every case in which
o client of Mr.. Ritter was dissatisfied with
his work and brought the former client in
to court A Nh. Ensinger, who was at one
time defended by Ritter and Joshua Adams
in q breach-of-promise suit. Testified that
his attorneys had induced him TO sign q
note to them for $500 secured by mortgage
by representing that IL was for the. pur-
pose of protecting them from n judg-
ment that might be recovered against him.
IL was attem pied TO prove by the witness
that several years afterward suit was
brought by Ritter and Adams to foreclose
this MORTGAGE. but the evidence was held
incompetent and not admitted.
The defense then called humane officer
Orlop TO testify as to Investigations made
by him into the charges against Hinkle of
permitted to testify. Attorney Spaan said
they woul be able to provo that these in
vestiRatlons were made at the l~nstlgatlon
of Hinkle's enemies In Hamilton county
after a consultation with MIR. Ritter.
The defendant himself then took the
stand and testified to the prosecutions.
which be termed prosecutions, against him
in Hamilton county. He detailed infinitely
oil the particulars of several arrests and
prosecutions for assault and battery
upon his twelve-year-old daughter. Mr..
Hinkle said that he was first arrested
on n warrant issued by the Mayor OF
NoDlesville charging him with assault and
battery apo the girl. The case was dis
missed and he was afterward arrested In
the Circuit Court, taking q change of venue
from the county. This case was also dis
missed IN the Upton Circuit Court This
was followed, he said, by Q suit against
him for possession of the child, which was
unsuccessful. He then came to this city
and consulted Ritter about the matter and
gave him IS to 60 to Noblesville and make
AN investigation with q view to advising
him In regard to the institution of q suit
for malicious prosecution. Ritter advised
bringing the suit. which was done. The
people at Noblesvllle. he says, were 80 in
censed az the proposed action that he was
attacked by o mob at one time and com-
PEELED to seek protection In the
county jeil. Subsequent to the filing
of his suit against the persons who had
he was again arrested on the same charge
and Ritter was employed to defend. he to
receive q fee of Sl25 and pay Noblesvilie
attorneys 500 to assist IN the defense.
fused to do this. 1t is in this case that
Ritter is charged with having acted IN
fairly. the basis of the charge being that
he returned to Indianapolis before all tho
argument In the case was In. The AMI
mostly against Hinkle at Noblesville was
90 strong that they employed counsel to as
SYST the State In his prosecution. Judge
Chapin, who presided, testified on tho
stand that the evidence against Afnkle
was such that all IN attorney could do vas
to soften the feelings of the jury and the
defendant was convicted and fined $500,
which he paid. Shortly after this con.
viction warrants were issued for the arrest
of himself and wife On the charge of
The warrants for his wife wac never
served. but he was again arrested and
took q change of venue from the county.
and upon the trial at Upton was acquitted.
Ritter and o firm of Upton lawyers de-
Tended him In this case. He testified that
he had paid Ritter in all about $500 in at
torney's fees. The evidence for the defense
is about al in, and the plaintiff has been
savlng his big guns" for the rebuttal, and
will ire them to-day probably.
Murder Decisions Reversed.
The Supreme Court yesterday handed
down q decision reversing the finding of
the Elkhart court. in the case OF State VS.
Simeon Field. who WAS indicted and tried
upon q charge of murder. and was sentenced
to the States prison for life. The victim
was Silas Bell. The parties became in
volved In q quarrel. ending in Fields stab
bing and killing Bell. The claim was self.
defense. Upon the second trial the defend
ant was found guilty of murder in the
second degree. The Supreme Court reverses
the case because of the courts error in not
stating the law to the jury. plainly and
affirmatively.
The case of Trogden VS.. the State, ap-
pealed from Clay county, was also re-
versed. because of an ~erroue0us charge to
the jury. Harry Trogden was o young
farmer. living Just across the Illinois line:
While working ont his road tax. q quarrel
ensued between him and the road super
VISOR. Giles Hastings Saunders. It subsid.
ed for the time. but broke ont again ut
quitting time In the evening. TroRden had
hitcbed mp his horses preparatory to going
home. and was standing upon the
Indiana side of the roadway, upon
the State line, when the controversy
was renewed. The State line Was between
the men. Saunders, il 10 alleged. was adj
vauclng upon Trogden with q heavy
missile. when the latter fired and killed
him. Trogdcn was tried in Vigo county,
and received o sentence of three years for
manslauahter. He obtained Q new trial
ana n change of venue to Clay county,
whore the sentence was again against him,
and the time was made five years. Ii is
this finding which the Supreme Court yes
terdsy reversed. thus demanding the case
for its fourth trial. in the first the jury
having disagreed.
Mrs. Scanion Awarded $3.50.
The Jury in the Scanlon damage suit
against the city returned . verdict In favor
Of the defendant and assessed her damages
at 81. go. Judge Harper at once entered
judgment upon the verdict Of the jury and
No.