The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1905-09-28
That Record.

the published speculation is nc
true, and the citing of the cases is
but one side of the record. That
paper said that Mr.. McBroom
claimed that he had only lost five
cases since he is prosecutor. The
prosecutor made no such claims.
We did state for him that there
were but five yerdicts rendered
against the county since he is
prosecutor, and we say so now.
There were cases lost in other
ways, in which McBroom was in
no wise to blame.
In the Republicans write-up
for Ricketts,, or in his write-up
for the Republican, he alleges,
very unfairly, that McBroom has
failed in many cases. The pro e.
cutor does not claim to win every
case. Where is there lawyer In
the world who wins every case in
which he is engaged?
The case of John Fugate is
brought forward by the Republi-
can and cited as one that Mr.. Nc
Broom lost, and that it cost the
county $64.O4. Why did not Mr..
Ricketts, in his organ, state the
whole truth; why did he not
state that Mr. McBroom prosecut-
ed John Fugate afterward and
made him pay fine of $50 and
the costs; that the prosecutor has
made this same John Fugate pay
$220.52 into the county treasury,
and sent him TO the penitentiary
for IA months, and put him out of
the criminal business in this
county.
Tell the whole truth about these
cases, and McBroom will stand
by his record. Mr.. Ricketts,
mourns about the $64.0O lost, but
says nothing about the $220.52 re.
covered and the putting Fugate
out of the criminal business in
this county.
The cases of Flanagan, Cooksey
and Baker are also cited. These
men were arrested for selling
whiskey in local op tion town
shipDapd their cases were settled
in open court on the promise they
would not offend the law again
Baker paid $23 80 and Flanagan
$3.50 and the saloons closed anG
there is no more violations of the
law along this line.
In the case of Culberston, tht
Republican s statement is very in
correct. Culberston was convict
ed but the case was carried W
and reversal had from the Cir
cult Court, and the case is nov
again in the Common Pleas Court
The Republican speaks of thu
Robinet case. Robinet was trieC
an paternity charge, and Mr.
Huls the editor of the criticisine
organ of Ricketts,, was one of th,
jurors, and held out to the last fol
a verdict of guilty, and howlet
upon the street that he was right
and that verdict of guilty shoult
have been reached. Prosecutor
McBroom must have convinced
Editor Huls that Robinet wal
guilty at the trial time, but in hi
newspaper he charges McBroon
with weakness for not convictins
Robinet. How strangely grea
minds change.
In speaking of the Hashm al
case, We have some things tt
say. That was case of nous,
burning, with witnesses in sigh
who saw the torch applyer in hi
feindish work. Candidate Rick
etts is the Deputy Fire Marsha
and Investigated the case. H,
was detective and prosecutor-in
chief by virtue of his office. Al
indictment was found, but befor,
the trial came on, the principle
witnesses were spirited away, ant
the indictment nullied. Rickett
lost that case as much or NOR,
than did McBroom. 1t was Fir,
Marshal Ricketts, place to work VI
the case and hold the witnesses
That is his business as Fire Mar
shal.
Now, in airing Prosecutor Nc
BrOom's record as court officer
| IL A n