The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-01-30

highwaymen paid their attention to.
On cross examination by Attoreny JEFF
fers, who represents Mclean, he stated
that he had met Arnold in a restaurant.
He alleged he saw Mclean and Finn
standing outside the building when he
went in. He stated that Arnold was
knocked down by one of the men, and he
refused at first to swear that Mclean
had pointed the revolver at his face, but
, afterwards said that he was sure that
Mclean was the party.
Officer Aaron Rohn was called to the
stand. He was one of the officers who
assisted in the arrest of Wallace, last
Wednesday. He described the capture
of Wallace at his home, and the way he
| talked on the way to the patrol box.
officer Rohn says he suggested to Wal
lace, that the easiest way out of the
trouble is the best" and he alleges
thereupon Wallace told him and another
officer the manner in which the assault
upon the two men was committed. An
objection to this testimony was raised
by one Of the attorneys, who stated that
there were citations sustaining an OBJ
lection, that where a prisoner made
statements to an officer or some one
person having him in charge, through
fear or reward, that such testimony
cannot be admitted. A little discussion
ensued as to the manner in which Off
Ger Rohn made his suggestion, and the
mayor finally ruled the objection as sus-
tained, and the officers testimony was
decided inadmissable.
w. II. Hardesty, who resides in the
vicinity, was also sworn. He states
that he knows the parties who are the
defendants. On the night of Novem-
Der 26th as he was accompanying his
wife home from up street, pushing a
baby carriage when they reached the
corner of Brown avenue, or near there
to, defendants, Wallace and Finn, came
running around the corner, and Wallace
nearly ran into the carriage. He recog
nized these two men, but did not recog
nize Mclean, although he saw a third
party escaping from the corner or side
street, William Bast who is employed
in the restaurant, stated that Wallace
was there early in the evening when Ar
mold was in the place, and as Arnold
pulled out some change, that Mclean
nudged a companion who was with him,
indicating that he should look at Arnold.
Witness did not recognize the second
party nor did he see Wallace or Arnold
ledNe lHe pace.
The attorneys of the defendants, inn
mediately after the state rested it's case
moved for dismissal of the defendants
on the ground that there was not suffl-
cient evidence to hold them, nor such
evidence as would warrant the mayor in
binding the young men over to the
grand jury. The character of the evil
dence adduced by the state was referred
to, and the alleged weakness of the
evidence to prove that the defendants
were the guilty parties. Attorney JEFF
fers dwelt on the fact that no injury had
been sustained by either parties and
that nothing had been taken from them,
and that there was not the remotest
point of evidence that would warrant
binding them over. Attorney J. c.
Boutwell, spoke in behalf of his client,
stating that there was cause for dis
missal and he hoped that the mayor
would not consider the evidence intro
duced by the witnesses as at all incrim-
mating the defendants.
In rendering his decision the mayor
replied that the question to be passed
committed, and as to the presence Of
these defendants in the vicinity at the
time of it's commital. He said there
was testimony tending to show both
these points. Therefore, from the tes-
timony, he felt justified in binding them
over to the grand jury in the sum Of
$500 each.