The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-10-20
.HECHLERa MUST
STAND TRIAL NOW
Court Refuses to Quash Indict-
lnent OH Any Ground Set
Forth by Defense,
GRAND JURYMEN ON STAND

NnHWU JOnlW6N Wv 0JNNO
Sitting for Judge r. Carter Scott In
the case OF Henry G. Hechler aud New
ton L. Gentry. both charged with yio-
1ation OF the pure election law. Judge
7. w. Harrison. in tho Henrico Cir
cult Court, yesterday overruled tho
plea OF abatement OF counsel for de-
Tense. the motion to auaah and TIN
demurrer to tile Indictment and the
trial was set for tomorrow morning at
10 o'clock.
a fairly large crowd was In attend
ancc on the proceedings OF the court,
but everything passed OF quietly. MIR.
HechIer was present through the hear
ing. On the refusal OF the court to
entertain motions OF his counsel, he
still retained the calm demennor which
has characterized his attitude for the
past several weeks.
wendcnburg Again.
Court did not convene until 1890
O'Clock. The session was completed In
two hours. the whole time having been
consumed In hearing argument OF both
sides as to the question of multiplying
the Indictment.
OUOJl OHtIt IieCHlsT. COunSel
for the defense argued that tile grand
jury had been improperly Influenced
by Commemorative Attorney Wenden-
burg. but examination of members OF
the grand jnry-Thomas c. Ruff1n.
foreman. and A. r. Holliday--S, p.
Waddill, clerk OF the court, and Mr..
Wendenburg. disproved the statement.
In response to queries from the defense,
the witness denied that there had been
NJ ind
aud they and Mr.. Wendenburg testified
that the latter was present In the
courtroom only for a short time, and
then in order to clear the minds Of the
jury as to technical points which had
been raised.
On this evidence Judge Harrison de-
cided adversely to counsel for defense
In their plea OF abatement and In the
motion to quash. Mr.. waddllI was
called simply TO state the kind Of
oaths administered to Mr. wendenburg,
which were. first, as n witness. and,
secondly. that he would faithfully and
1npartially advise the grand jury.
Judge Harrison held that q grand
jury must necessarily be advised by
prosecuting attorney on technical
points. and that Mr.. wendenburg' IS
presence In the grand jury room had
NOT been prejudicial to tia interests
OF the defendant.
Mr.. OFlaherfy. OF counsel for the
defense. thereupon entered demurrer
10 the Indictment and to every count
u contained. He declared that the in
dictmcnt looked as IL II were not In
accordance with law and with the
courts former opinion as to the pre-
Nious Indictment
He said that none OF the counts con-
stituted violation of the law, and
that the indictment was vague and in
definite in that 1t should have alleged
Tie special law under which the pri-
mary referred TO was held and the
cotton under which II was called. lie
declared that the Indictment was de-
fective in showing that e. II. Phillips,
former deputy clerk of the court,
lad unlawfull% received money from
icchIer for payment of poll taxes.
Then ensued an argument as to the
voting qualification of man whose
taxes had been paid by another. one
OF the arguments on which the court
based his previous decision In favor
of the defense. Mr.. O'Flaherty held
that voter was necessarily dlsquali-.
fled when his. taxes were paid by Hn-
other, and, therefore, that Mr.. Hechler
could not be charged with unduly in.
fuencIng voter. He said the clerk
had no business TO put on the voting
list the names OF those whose taxes
had been paid by another.
AIR. Harry Smith. for the prosecution.
stated that the Indictment had been
made more definite: that 1t had mar
rowed the definition of a candidate in
accordance with the courts views ex-
pressed In an opinion handed down in
the former trial. and that 1t alleged
~. IN
by those whose taxes he is alleged
to have paid. He declared the law
held the list of voters made out b,
The clerk of the court to be conclu>
sivc evidence of their right to exer-
else their franchise. He held that ,nan
TO be guilty of criminal intent who
paid another for his vote or paid
his taxes, even though that voter. be
disqualified at the polls. He said he
was content to rest upon the indict-
1n.nt.
Mr.. d. C. Richardson. OF the defense,
declared that the primary had not
been held in accordance with law. He
said that the primary referred to was
not a lcgalized primary. but con-
Eregation of citizens asselnbledto ex-
press their opinion.
Statement of Court.
The court expressed the opinion, ac-
scording to the Indictment. that a man
may be guilty II he use his money for
Improper purposes, even though tho
Voter were disqualified. He. therefore.
pverruled the demurrer. Counsel for
the defense noted an exception to the
courts ruling. In handing down his
,erbal opinion, the court stated:
..Thc Indictment showed on Its
S face thatsthc defendant was II cam
didatc at nm election, and was voted
for In the election, and that he
influenced, by use of money in pay
nent of his tax, voter In tina E
election, md that, therefore, the
Charge Ii fully covered by statute.
"a Although the Indictment showed on
IT'S fnce tbnt the party charged to
have been influenced had no right
to vote, 1t further showed that he
lid vote. The end the law Intended
to correct was that money shall not
he improperly used to affect the
result of an election.
eff n man whOse vote Syax counts
al IN IN election wan influenced,
tl,c same end resulted ms II he had
the right to vote and his vote wns "a
legally cast. 1t does not lie In the
,,,.,utl,, ar s, lnnus who admitted by k