The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-05-28
SHORT WORK.
The Case of Secretary John E.
SearIes
Called in Judge BradIey's Court
Today.
NO INTEREST SHOWN.
His Attorneys Didn't Trouble
to Challenge Jurors.
Confident of an Easy Victory
for Their Client.

Washington, May 2S.-The trial Of
John E. Searles, secretary of the Amer
ican Sugar Refining company. follow
ed that of President Havemeyer before
Judge Bradley in criminal court No.
today
Judge Bradley's decision yesterday,
which threw the case against Have
meyer out of court. robbed the Searies
trial of much of its interest despite the
assertion of District Attorney Davis
that the cases were not analogous and
that the contention set up by the de
fense in the Havemeyer case, upon
which the judge ordered a verdict of
the SearIes case
The general belief was that the main
question as to pertinency would be
raised by the defense in this case and
that the judge would be required to
rule on that question before the de-
fense opened. The Indictment found
against Mr.. SeaTIes was very similar to
the one found against Mr.. Havemeyer
except that the questions asked of Mr.
Searles were somewhat different. The
Indictment reciteS that by a resolution
of the senate a committee was appoint
ed to investigate certain charges made
by the press concerning the election
of 1892
The committee summoned Secretary
SearleS. He was asked by the COM
mittee: What amount was expended
1892?''
L uECIUe TO answer the question:.
said Mr.. Searles, giving as his reason
for declining to answer that he did not
believe it within the province of the
committee to ask such a question. The
committee then asked:
What sum did you (meaning the
American Sugar Refining company
contribute to the Democratic campaign
fund in the state of New York in 1892
that was used for the purposes of con-
Quoting the campaign of that state, at
which time Cleveland and Harrison
We're candidates for president of the
United States?"
I decline to answer that question:
was Mr.. Searles' reply and for the
same reason as given in the declina-
tiOn to answer the first question"
Did you contribute to the Democrat
ic campaign fund in New York; was
asked. He again declined to answer.
The same lawyer who @Lpeared for
Mr.. Havemeyer had charge of Mr..
Searles' defense. Mr. Havemeyer sat
by Mr.. Searles' side in the rear of the
table occupied by his counsel. The
mem bers of the senate Investigating
committee and other distinguished per-
sons were present. Before the trial be-
gan, District Attorney Davis, who
conducted the case for the government.
asked that in the event that the trial
of the case was not concluded, although
he said he saw no reason why, it should
be adjourned until Tuesday. He gave
as a reason an important engagement
of the counsel for the defense. To this
Judge Bradley agreed. None of the
first IL talesmen was challenged, but
one was excused. The Indifference OF
the defendants counsel to the compost
ton of the jury seemed to indicate their
confidence that the case eventually
would be taken out of the hands of the
jury as that of Mr.. HaVemeyer'S was
At 11:4O the government rested its
case against John z. Searles, secre-
tary of the American Sugar Refining
company, and the defense moved that
the jury be instructed to bring in a
verdict of acquittaI on three grounds