The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-26
INTEREST In STARR CASE
ATTORNEYS FILE BRIEF IN THE
SUPREME COURT.
Judge Vaughn Inundated to Allow
Starr to BE Tried aS n Poor Per-
son-wording of Brief

brief for the relator in the unique
mandamus case of the State on the relation
of Dick Starr against Edwin {. vaughn
Judge of the Circuit Court of Wells county,
was filed in the Supreme Court yesterday.
STAIRS attorneys preface their argument
by saying they are not certain that the
rules of the Supreme Court require Drlef
in such a case. They continue by admit
ting that they did not originally ask TO
have Starr prosecuted a poor person,
but later believing that he did not have
a fair trial and that error was committed,
filed showing TO that effect and asked the
trial court to order the reporter to furnish
Starr with longhand manuscript OF the
shorthand notes of the evidence under Sec
ton 1474 of the Revised Statutes OF 1884;
The brief says that Judge Vaughn refused
this order on the ground that TO grant II
would cost the county too much.
The position of Starr in the mandamus
proceeding is further strengthened by the
declaration that in instruction No. 10 the
court told the jury that the evidence of
the fight between Otto Robelskey and Fet-
tiers should not be considered by them. In
less the evidence Is in the record, says the
brief, the instructions will not be consi6-
cred by the Supreme Court if they can be
considered correct upon any statement OF
facts admissible under the issues in the
case. Decisions to this effect are cited.
THE statute (Section 147D," says the
l., pOSCs
il is not left TO the nsi prius Qowerl court
to decide in what cases he shall make such
order, and in a case like this where the
relator is only nineteen years of age and
convicted of such a heinOus crime and i'm
prisoned for not less than two more
than fourteen years, it is the duty of the
court to make the order demanded.
On account of the great interest aroused
by the Starr case, which was heightened
Thursday by the Supreme Court issuing
an alternative writ against Judge Vaughn.
citing him to appear and show cause why
he should not grant STAIRS request, the
statute in question is quoted here. 1t reads
follows:
to appeal to the Supreme Court or Appel
late Court of this State from the decision
of any circuit or criminal court or judge
thereof, in criminal cases, and not having
sufficient means to procure the longhand
manuscript transcript of the evidence
taken in shorthand by the order per-
mission of any of said courts or the Judge
thereof, the court or judge thereof shall
direct the shorthand reporter to transcribe
his shorthand notes of evidence into long
hand as soon thereafter practicable and
deliver the same to such poor person: Pro-
Vided. The court or the judge thereof is
satisfied that such poor person has not
sufficient means to pay said reporter for
making said longhand manuscript or tran
script Of evidence. such reporter may
charge such compensation as is allowed
by law in such cases for making and fur
nishing said lOnghand manuscript, which
service of said reporter shall be paid by the
court or judge thereof out of the proper
county treasury"
STAIRS counsel rely upon the word shall
in the section, which, they declare, makes
the law mandatory, and the judge has no
alternative but must order the evidence
makes proper showing of inability 10 pay
for ii.