The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-10-25
Hilton u. Brown, Arthur Stahl, James
w. Noel and DIR. Gorge f. Hunt
Held to he Guiltless.
DECISION MADE IN A HURRY
RULING FOLLOWS ARGUMENTS BY
c. w. SMITH AND HI. N. SPAAN.
Courtroom Filled with Citizens In
terested in the Case-Duncan Had
No Chance to Speak.

The indictments for conspiracy to bribe
Edwin D. Logsdon, member of the Book
walter Board of Works, returned by the
grand jury against Hilton u. Brown, gen.
eral manager of the Indianapolis News;
Arthur Stahl, the ST. Louis detective
brought here by the News to entrap Logs
don; James w. Noel, prosecuting Logsdon
in a special Council inquiry. and Dr.
George Edwin Hunt secretary Of the Citi-
zens' League, were quashed by Judge Fre-
mont Afford in the Criminal Court yester-
day morning.
The argument to Quash the indictments
was made by Charles W. Smith, of the firm
of Duncan g. Smith, which represented the
men accused during the Police Court hear
ing before Judge Whallon. Henry Spaan,
for Logsdon, assisting the State resisted
the motion. Judge Afford took little time
to decide the case. After speech on each
side he made known his decision which was
given verbally.
JUDGE AFFORDS DECISION.
Judge Afford said: I'm this matter 1
have studied these statutes and passed on
them a number Of times, and I am of the
opinion that the first count of the indict-
ment is bad, for the reason that 1t is never
sufficient in charging a conspiracy, to fol-
low the language of the statute. The lam
guage of the statute must be set out. but
there must also follow that complete de-
scription of the crime that they conspired
to commit In this count there is a lack
of charge of a felony.
1.-The word 'corruptly. is used in this
statute. 1 take it to mean % that II is
corruptly offered by the parties that make
an offer for the purpose of corrupting some
one in Office, and that that was the object
and intent of the Legislature I'm passing
this law-not that men may not make Of
fers of money or give money to officers
without intention to influence them In any
particular in relation to their office I do
not think the Legislature ever intended to
make a thing of that kind a crime: but
corruptly to offer man in office money
in relation to the discharge OF the duties
devolving upon him as an officer was made
a crime.
SECOND COUNT BAD.
at can no reason why the first part
OF the statute should be separated from
that part which says, 'or promise anything
of value to influence etc. 1t is simply n
broader term. seeking to make other things
a crime besides the offering OF money, the
granting of any favor or anything of value
making that a crime. There are but two
divisions 10 this section-one is Offering and
another is accepting and soliciting.
Under this the second count of the in
dictment is insufficient in falling to allege
that ,he parties making this offer knew
Mr.. Lossdon was a member of the Board
of Public Works, although this court might
say that they did know: but I am of the
opinion that that is necessary allegation.
And next, the lack of facts showing that
they sought to corruptly influence Mr.
Logsdon in relation to his official duty as A
member of the Board of Public Works of
the city OF indianapolis. That being true
the court holds that the second and third
counts are insufficient. not charging a pub
lie offense under the statute and the mo-
tion 10 quash will be sustained as to each
defendant, and the State be given an ex-
ception.
ARGUMENT WAS DRY
The courtroom was well filled when the
case was disposed of. The men under in
dictment were present. but Logsdon was
conspicuous by his absence. The more