The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-12-16
DIR. ALEXANDER is SICK
ANOTHER MOTION FOR A CONTINU-
ANCE SUSTAINED BY THE COURT.
This Time the Trial Is Set for Jan.
12-Other Cases in the Local
Courts.

The expected motion for a continuance
of the trial of DR.. Joseph c. Alexander
was entered and sustained by Special Judge
John NJ Bailey when the case was called
yesterday, the day set for the trial when
the first continuance was granted two
weeks ago. The continuance this time is
because of the serious illness of DR.. Alex
ander at his home on North Alabama
street. He has been indisposed for several
days and under the treatment of DR.. Frank
A. Morrison His physician filed in court,
after the motion for a continuance had
been made certificate of disability for
the consideration of the court. No afti-
davit was made, the certificate alone being
taken sufficient justification for the adj
ditional delay. Dr. Morrison stated that
although DR.. Alexanders condition is not
alarming. it is sufficiently serious to make
it impossible for him to leave his home.
His recovery within ten days is probable,
DR.. Morrison says, unless his patient should
suffer relapse.
The date set for the trial was Jan. II.
This date was agreed by the attorneys for
the defense to be sufficiently far removed
to insure DR.. Alexanders ability to appear
at that time. On that day the cases of DR..
Frank NJ. Wright, of the Eclectic Medical
College, and DR.. William Mott, of the
Physiological College. charged similarly
to Alexander with concealing human
corpses, will be called. This announcement
was made by Prosecutor Ruckelshaus, and
explained with statement afterwards that
the delays were so frequent and of such
duration that if the State hopes to begin
the prosecution OF the grave robbers at all
something will have to be done in starting.
He said that If Alexander is not ready for
trial on the 18th of January and Judge
! Bailey grants another continuance, the
cases of Drs. Wright and Molt will be
called in succession.
The suggestion of William T. Brown, a
privately employed attorney who is assist
ting in the prosecution of DIR. Alexander,
| that a day be set on which motions on
| technicalities in the case may be heard
was disapproved by Judge Bailey after the
| attorneys for the defense had objected TO
| 1t. DR.. Alenxander's attorneys insisted
| that their client should be present in per-
| son when any disposition was made OF the
| interests in his case, and that he would not
be present in the court until the day APP
| pointed for trial.
| The seventy veniremen were discharged
| This panel of jurymen was the second IN
the Alexander case, the first being of fifty
names. In the first case the fifty men re-
| ported and were paid their per diem allow
| ances for jury service and mileage. In
yesterdays case, however, through the
| prompt work of Chief Clerk Craft, of the
sheriff's office, and the deputies, the jurors
were notified of the probable continuance
| Only three of them, men who were not
reached by the notification, reported, and
| the rest did not serve, and consequently
| will not be paid. This results in a saving
| of about $500 to the county, which has al
| ready been taxed severely in expenses or
| the Alexander trial.