The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1899-04-20

There was hum Of expectancy when
the name of W. o. Werntz was called.
Mr.. wern'z is a lawyer, and it has beer
said that Ae gave some testimony of a
sensational sort before the grand jury.
Mr.. Werntz was not in the court room
when first called. He entered the stand
at 9:16. In answer to questions by Mr..
Pomerene, Mr.. werntz said:
''I have known Mrs. George for three
years. met her first in the office OF
Sterling s. werntz. Mr.. Sterling and
I'were associated till the 3rd Of last July.
Since that time have seen Mrs George
n number Of times. remember the
occasion of Ssxton's death. 1 was in my
office. On Monday of that week 1 saw
her twice, once at her residence and
again at my office. There was an at
tachment suit in behalf Of Mrs. Findlay
against Mrs. George. had talk with
Mrs. George about Mr.. saxton at her
home that day"
"what was that conversations" asked
the prosecutor.
"I claim a privilege, said Mr.. Werntz.
Then the question of q confidential
relation between attorney and client,
which had been anticipated, arose. Mr..
welty contended that Mrs. George cou'
suited witu ess at that time about some
actions that were then pending. Mr..
taA tO Gk
yersation had bearing on this case. He
said that they would claim that there is
no such a thing as conflder tial Ielntion
when crime is contemplated.
Witness was asked soue questions in a
preliu mary way. He said he was coun'
sci for Mrs. George in the attachment
case and in peace proceeding pending
in probate court, in which Mrs. Alt
house was the complain ming witness. Mr..
WeIty cross-examined Mr.. Werntz con.
cernipg his professional relations with
Mrs. George. Mr. werntz sal he was the
general attorney for Mrs. George and
that he was interested as counsel in the
Injunction Use and in other cases at the
time be talked with her, and the consul
tation was with reference to all the
cases There was no one present save the
attorney and his client at the time of the
conversation.
The counsel for the state tten related
TO the court, not in the hearing of the
jury, what 1t was expected to prove.
The admissibility Of the testimony was
argued at length. 1t was stated by Mr..
Werntz, when he left the grand jury
room, that he had been asked by the
prosecutor concerning conversation
with Mrs. George, in which she is alleged
to have suid that she would go to the
Althouss premises at some time and
would make a disturbance. 1t is said
also tn t she told him she had revolver,
1t was evidence Of this sort that IL was
desired to admit aud on which argument
was made.
On behalf of the defense Mr.. Welty
araued that whatever was said there was
said In connection with cases then pend
ing. These cases will he brought into
this lawsuit es stowng the relations OF
Saxton and Mrs. George, and that, ac-
cording to Mr.. Welty, makes them a part
Of this lawsuit. 1t was contended that
the conversation sought to be introduced
was part of general conversation that
was privileged communication between
attorney and client, and that portion Of
the conversation could not be culled out
and used against an accused without
giving the whole conversation. The
statement alone might appear TO be dam
aging, yet when taken with other conyer-
sation that took place would appear in
another light. OF the other conversl-
tion there is no question. 1t was priv
ileged, Therefore the question as to
whether it were fair to take out a small
portion of the conversation was perth
nent.
On the part of the state it was olaimed
that the defense might bring ont as much
of the conversation as it wanted, yet need
not bring out any of it,
Mr. Pomerene argued that it was not
privileged for a party TO tell Of a con
templated crime. After the crime il
committed, and the party accused sees on
attorney and makes statements, confess
sions or rot, with view to employing the
attorney, il is privileged.
Mr.. Grant a'gued on behalf Of the
state also to show that the intended
statements were entirely admissible
He read from authorities arguing that
there can be no privileged comm unica
tion between couisel and client regard
ing the proposed commission OF a crime
The solicitor would become party TO tho
crime or would have been deceived, IL
which case the relation would not be con
! fldentlal.
Mr. Sterling was not feeling well, ans