The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1909-02-25
COURT HOUSE
ARGUE KNoRIocH CASE.

Arguments in the proceedings to
quash the four indictments charging
ex-County Treasurer Harry G. Knob
loch, of this city, with embezzlement
of county funds were heard yesterday
morning by Judge Amber.
Contending t hat the four indict-
ments returned by the January grand
jury were indefinite, uncertain, re-
pugnant and duplex in their allega-
tiens, Attorneys Robert and Luther
Day asked judge Amber to sustain
motions to quash the indictments
which were filed about two weeks ago
Il Is alleged that the amount OF
money embezzled was $5O65.S7
AS to the indictment charging the
embezzlement of S263.50 the defense
asked that it be nolled because, al
leging that the true bill was returned
by the Stark grand jury instead OF by
the January grand jury
Attorney Luther Day made the open
ing argument on the motion and said
in part; Every defendant has a
right to know the exact nature of the
charge he has to face. The indict-
ments should state the specific facts
and unless they do the defendant
ought to have bar against prosecu-
tion. The grand jury must state facts,
not conslusions. Whether the facts
constitute an offense is not for the
grand jury to determine.
Until your honor, learned in the
law, says that the facts constitute
a crime we think we are not required
to rest upon an opaque basis The
court must apply the law to determine
the efficiency of criminal allegations,
otherwise the rules of Jurisprudence
would be violated. You cannot place
a man on trial and force him to make
a defense In the dark. The law ope-
rates on a given basis of facts. The
legislature may in some cases have
provided for a short form of indict-
ment but it has never set forth that
in an Indictment for embezzlement,
the bare charge of the crime is suf
flcient We base our rights here on
the decisions of courts, not on the
written forms of law. The indlct-
ments must set forth whether the de-
fendant embezzled and converted to
his own use or whether he embeHzled
by converting to his own use. These
charges are not synonymous"
In reply to the opening argument,
Assistant Prosecutor Pontius defend
the wording of the indictments as
indictments are clearly base on the
embezzlement statute pertaining to !
public Offices The form of the in
dictment used in each of the four
cases is an old form approved twice |
by the supreme court.
'The prosection maintains that the |
Offenses are substantial charges. I'm |
material averments are omitted. The |
same form in these cases was used |
in the case of Ohio against Myers !
which went to the supreme court from |
Stark county. Probate Judge Bow was
prosecutor at that time. The defend
ant was represented by Attorneys Will |
liam r. Day and Welty and Albaugh. !
They raised the objection that the in
dictment was duplex, and the motion
was overruled by Common Pleas Judge |
Prosecutor Krichbaum then said in
part; Many citations submitted |
here by the defense were in force be-
for the passage of the present clarified |
passage governing embezzlement. The |
universal meaning of the word 'em-
bezzlement' is to convert to ones own
use. The trend of the defense's argu- |
ment seems to have been pinned to |
the contention that the legal eonclu- |
sion cannot be placed. We acknowl- !
edge that 1t cannot, and deny that |
such conclusion is contained in the
indictments"
The motions were taken under ad-
Visement indefinitely by Judge Am
bier.