The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-07-10
PROSECUTOR (O JEssUP.

The Darby Gordon McCoo1 trial fol
assault and battery has served one
very good purpose and that is to show
Wilfred Jessup, Richmonds bossde
fying(D prosecutor, in his true charac.
ter. Jessup allowed what should
have been a common, ordinary assault
and battery case to degenerate into a
slanderous attack on the Palladium
In fact, instead of having Gordon and
terry, spectator in the court room
would have sup psed that the Palladi-
UNI was on trial And all this because
the Palladium dares print all the news
whether it affects rich newspaper
owner or poor outcast Jessup, at the
/, outset of the trial, stated that a
wrong impression had been allowed to
gain circulation to the effect that the
Palladium was prosecuting the case.
| OF course. we are deeply obliged to
Jessup for this exoneration, but hard
ly think it was necessary in view of the
way he handled the trial, as it was
clearly to be seen that the Palladium.
instead of prosecuting, was being pros
ecuted. That all this had absolutely
no bearing on the case, which was a
common assault and battery case. made
no difference. Jessup realized who
! his master was and answered the crack
OF the whip with alacrity.
Darby, the Item carrier, who claim
ed he was assaulted by Gordon and
!, McCool, and who was supposed to be
/. the prosecuting witness for the state,
was so handled by Jessup as to be the
prosecuted witness Jessup deserves
severe criticism for his despicable
more SO In view of his repeated decla-
Frations of being for the common peo-
iple. From the start he showed him
lself to be absolutely favorable to the
defendants and in view of this, were
he fair and square man, he would
fhave refused to act as Darby's and the
Estates attorney, and turned it over to
some other attorney He should have
done this all the more on account of
having advised the defendants Sunday
smorning not to plead guilty He cited
ITO them an incident where a jury had
acquitted defendants in trial for
assault and battery. Now, we Won
sder if Jessup believes that this is living
up to his oath to uphold the laws of
khis state? Does he show this same
consideration to the ordinary run of
defendants he prosecutes in assault and
Battery cases?
(which Jessup so ably plead the cause
of the state and it's prosecuting wit
mess, we will give several examples of
his manner of handling the case
when Darby was on the stand Jessup
asked him if when Gordon struck him
DIT did not knock him flat Darby re-
piled that it did not, that it staggered
him. to which Jessup brilliantly replied
hhat it was not as bad then as he had
bright remark to make in the hearing
of the jury! Then again. throughout
hhe trial, as far as we can learn. Jessup
made only one objection to any of At
forney Johnson's remarks. Johnson
during the trial stated that the alley
IN which the trouble occurred, was pri- !
Nate, but was corrected by Jessup. who
maintained it was public. Now, of i
pconrse, this objection had great bearing
mended for not overlooking it. No
wonder Jessup could wind up with self |
congratulations that the case had been
remarkably free from any wrangling
between the opposing" attorneys. And
how brave he must have felt in advis- /
ing the jury to find Gordon not guilty |
but to find McCool guilty,
The jury could not have done other /
wise than find both the defendants not /
guilty. Jessup as prosecutor brought /
in no evidence that could convict the
men One of the redeeming feat
nres to the trial was the testimony of
the defendants. They both told
straight forward stories and even ad-
mitted that they had struck Darby.
What any other attorney but Jessup
could have done with this testimony
Is not matter of doubt.
Isn't ii a shame the way a rich man
is allowed to be provoked by poor
man?