The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-02-07
GOT ONE JOMTISI.
But Ed Timon, the Big Fish, Goes
Free

The jury which convicted Charles
McGregor of maintaining a nuisance
where liquors are sold in the Shawnee
county district court on Tuesday after
noon, and acquitted Ed Timon and
George Anderson at the same time,
was treated to a -renaarka Bile lecture on
the duties of a jurer by Frank H. Eos
ter, the attorney for the state in Assist
ant Attorney General Garver's stead
Four times in Succession had the
jury acquitted defendants from the
charge of selling liquor. Mr.. Foster
thought IT was about time for the jury
to wake up 10 its obligations, so after
the instructions had fbeen delivered in
the McGregor Misunderstanding case
by Judge Dana, he launched forth into
a TRADE against some OF the erroneous
theories upon which juries have been
acung. HIS speech was Slngularly eff
fective. At least it brought forth one
conviction, the only one out of seven
charges against as many different per-
sons. Mr.. Fosters argument follows
in part:
THE great question for every jury
man to consider is not how the guilty
may escape. but in what measure the
guilty should be punished. This case
has been argued by Mr.. Nichols upon
the theory that it IS the duty of a juror
to strive his utmost to see whether or
not there is any avenue of escape by
any possible probability for the defend
ants.
I know that juries in the past have
acted upon this principle, but in so
doing they have been traitors to their
country. When circumstances are
proven which naturally and inevitably
lead to a conclusion of guilt, in order
to escape such conclusions. some duty
the defendant and if with full OppOr-
tunity to perform those duties, the de-
PENDANT neglects them, he should be
ready to take the consequences.
The theory of Mr.. Nichols that the
defendant. Anderson gave receipts for
rent simply as an accommodation for
Henry Steele is not supported by any
evidence When a man gives a re-
ceipt for rent in his own name, the
natural conclusion to be drawn from
it is that he gives the receipt in the
capacity of landlord. It is the theory
of Mr.. Nichols that he might have
been giving it as an act of friendship
for Henry Steele.
Henry Steele was witness in this
case. If this was the real fact how
easy it would have been to have proven
this by Henry Steele. With full OPP
portunity to substantiate this theory.
his failure to do so leads to another
conclusion, and that is that the theory
has no foundation to rest upon. Mr.,
Nichols would haze you believe that
the witness, Harold. when he testified
from the defendant, Timon, testified
out of a spirit of malice and revenge.
because he had had some quarrel with
Henry Steele.
There is not a particle of evidence
tending to show that Henry Steele was
in any way interested in this joint or in
the billiard han. He was simply an
agent for the building. Why, in
heavens name, should any animosity
to Henry Steele be q motive for taking
a false oath in the presence of the
court and Almighty God in a contro-
versy between the state. Ed Timon,
AcGregOr and Anderson
such specuiauons are too thin and
it is an insult to the Intelligence of any
juKy7 to- ask them sdisproYe thestesti-
mony of a witness. given under the
solemnity of an OATH simply because
he happens to be angry at some one in
no wise Connected with the case. This
is fair sample Of the caviling ond
clubbing which counsel indulge in in
defending these kind of cases. and it
is UP to you TO put the seal of con-
demnation upon such folly"