The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-03-30


for this new firm. for the purpose of intro
ducIng this thread to the trade of this and
contiguous States. The court Is asked to-
enjoin the defendant from selling this
thread under the designation of "Clark's
the plaintiffs attorneys.
Mcclure Murder Trial.
The usual large crowd was present in the Grim
inal Court room yesterday during the Mcclure
murder trial. The theory of the defense is that
the revolver with which the shooting was done
was one that could not be discharged except by
striking the hammer and they are endeavoring
to show that this was done by ''Chat" Bryan.
brother of Mrs Mcclure. when he struck at Lon
Mcclure with piece of timber. Both DR.. Bell
and George Mcclure, father OF the defendant,
testified that Mrs. Mcclure had bruise upon
the side of her head, which looked as if 1t might
have been made by being truck with club or
some blunt instrument. George Mcclure testi-
fled upon cross examination that upon the Sun
day following the shooting he had told Chat
Bryan not to say anything about the shooting.
and that Lon would get out OF the trouble, and
then he (witness) would take him and his wife
home.
Jack Cooley, the hackdrlver who drove Lon
to his fathers house after the shooting. and took
his father TO the Bryan house. testified to having
met Lon, and the latter was crying. and said that
he had shot his wife, and asked the witness TO
drive him to his fathers house. Cooley and
were arrested in the Criminal Court room when
they appeared to testify. The arrests were made
upon old grand jury warrants charging them
with riot at North indianapolis about year and
a half ago. Charles w. Hess, the man for whom
Cooley was going when he met Lon. testified
that upon the night OF the shooting he saw
revolver at his home and that his wife told him
it had been left there by Lon. but he knew moth
ing of his own personal knowledge as TO who left
he had seen Lon when he was going home, and
that he t1IOn) had said that he expected trouble.
Afterwards when his attention was called to the
time of this conversation he said that it was not
upon the night of the shooting, but few days
previous. George Ford was the next witness
called, and testified to having got the re-
ing 1t into Bryan's yard. He said Lon asked
him TO do this. saying that he was told the police
were looking in the yard Tor the revolver, ana
carpenter testified to having made measure
ments and o diagram OF the yard where the
shooting occurred, and from his evidence u was
after leaving "Chat" Bryan's house before the
shooting was done. The defense will try to
show that it was at this point that "Chap struck
at Lon with the club which he held in his hand,
and that the club struck the hammer or the re-
xolyer It and causing the WOUND lt
nesses introduced by the defense testified that
Chat" Bryan's reputation for peace and
There was q touching scene in the court room
which caused mOistening of eyes all over the
room when Iona, the twelve-year-old sister OF
her brother. She testified to the happenings
at the home of her father on the night Of the
aOog when Lon and I'D sa Wife
evidence was substantially as has been given
upon this point, and she told her story in
straightforward manner; without hesitation. and
made an excellent witness for the defense As
she left the stand she burst into tears and walk
ing directly TO attorney Henry Span. climbed
affected by the little girls mute appeal to him,
and in very short space OF time the tears began
to chase one another down his dark cheek The
evidence will probably be concluded to-day and
the argument begun.
She Still Has the Child.
A number of complications arose In the Hartz
habeas corpus and divorce cases yesterday. but
all or nearly all OF them were Strengthened out
before Judge Harper adjourned court for the
day. Yesterday morning, when the court con-
vened, Virginia Hartz and her former husband,
George Hartz, were in the court room, and the
matter of the modification of the decree came
up. BY agreement of the parties the decree was
set aside. but the order granting Hartz the Gus
tody of the child was continued in force. Hartz
Immediately relied the first paragraph Of his
cross complaint. alleging infidelity on the part
the proceedings MIRA. Hartz walked out Of Of
the court room, taking with her the child, which.
according TO the agreement OF the evening be-
fore. she was TO give over to the father yester-
day morning. When HartZ wanted the child il
could not be found. and he at once made an aff-
davit, upon which q writ of habeas corpus was
issued made returnable Immediately. After
these proceedings were had the attorney for
Mrs. Hartz placed on file her affidavit for a
change OF venue from the county, alleging that
she could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in
this county on account-Of q prejudice and odfum
attaching TO her and to her defense. The case
was sent to Hamilton county. About o'clock
service OF the writ OF habeas corpus OBJ
tanned upon Mrs. Hartz and the child produced
tween S'' the attorneys sa in Which sch %s
calties were advanced faster than the court
could note them upon the record. Finally
the court entered judgment. and ordered that the
child be given TO the father in compliance with
the former order of the court The attorneys
for Mrs. Hartz then filed motion for O new
trial, which was promptly overruled, and an APP
peal prayed and granted to the general term
Az the clerk was not present TO certify the judy
ment and issue the order to the sheriff the child
could not he taken from the mother, although q
deputy sheriff was present who could enforce the
order. As a consequence the child was permit
ted TO again return home with Its mother until
the judgment OF the court could be enforced In
the regular way.
Judge Taylor and the Children's Guardians
The argument In the Shutter habeas corpus
proceedings was concluded in Room of the SUI
perior Court yesterday morning, and the case
taken under advisement. In speaking OF the
law under which the board claims the authority
to invade the home and take forcible possession
of q child, Judge Taylor said that the law was
loose and granted the board a plenary power
which shey seemed inclined to exercise to the
fullest extent. He said that the law was a
menace TO the liberties of citizens. and by it the
board was substituted for parental authority
over children; 1t empowered them to invade the
home and take from it child and the parents
were without redress. These children, lie said.
the board had authority TO place i'll the charge OF
persons who had no appreciation OF the relation
between parent and child.
The question upon which the court was unde-
cided was as To jurisdiction. He was not certain
whether under the law the Circuit Court had ex-
elusive Jurisdiction and desired to examine this
point. To allow him sufficient time to do SO he an
nounced that he would not give finai decision
until Wednesday, April s. In the course OF his
remarks he intimated that O proper supervision
had not been maintained by the Circuit Court
over the transact lions or the board. He said that
II he were the Circuit judge he would see that in
casee where the parents had shown disposition
ana ability TO care for their children, they were
restored to the parents and he also remarked
that any law when abridged the right OF the
parent in such cases was radically wrong.
She Was I'M ocent Of Wrong.
The Appellate Court, Judge Gavin writing the