The Detroit times., 1910-12-02
CURR|[ AND glSl
CHANGES laE
DISMISSED
Prosecutor Asks That Defendants &
Freed After Judge Connolly Givs1|
Ruling Greatly Rsstzictiag
Testimony. q
Order Of Nolle Prosequi Is Entered d
Another Joint Charge Against u
Pair.

O'Clock Frioay afternoon IN the #
Currie and Case trials, prooocutor
Van ziie, addressing the couex
said: .t
lin view Of your honor's rulino
this morning. don't believe we
can convict these men,"
u therefore ask the court. cor
nnued the prosecutor, ito dIsmlss
the present charges, and that an
order OF noile proequi be entered
IN the other joint charge pendinu
against defendants.
Ihis action will Of course Sc
taken and means that Currie n Is
Ireeo from all criminal prooocu-
ZION, although there are said %
De additional charges against
Case. VA
The defense in the case OF MA,
Amy 1. Gray against Cameron Currto:
ahu Louis n. Case, charged with con-
spiracy and embezzlement In connec-I
tion with her loss OF $356.25, wh.cnI:
she gave them TO purchase stock sor|
her and which was not delivered.
scored heavily in decision by JUDGE.
Connolly on an important point, FRI.
day noon.
The court decided that the proseeay-
zion Will not be permitted to subnnik
testimony OF any kind, affecting the
financial standing or acts Of the de-
PENDANTS prior to July Is, 1908, when
MRS. Gray paid over her money ar
later than July Is of the same yeur.
when the defendants went into bank !
ruptcy and a receiver was appointed.
This decision Is regarded by tho prose.
cution as a distinct handicap.
The question OF admitting testimony
ms to actions which the prosecution
must now confine itself. camc up on
Thursday morning, when Chief Assist-
ant Prosecutor Aldrich asked Gordon
Fernley, the clerk who received Mrs.
Gray's money, what time Currie went
to Boston prior to the failure of the
FIRM The attorneys for the defense
made strong objection to the ques4s
ton, contending that the prosecution
should first be Obliged to prove that
an embezzlement had occurred at the
time specified in the information, July
10. The court, wishin gto look up the
authorities on the point, adjourned
court until Friday morning.
On the reopening of court. the at 4
torneys on both sides argued at
length on the question. the prosecu-
ton citing law in support of its claim
that the testimony relating to acts
OF declarations OF Currie before and
after the date OF the information
should be admitted, while Messrs.
Henderson and Frazer, for the de-
Tense. quoted authorities and advanced
arguments against the proposition.
Prosecutor Van Zile pointed out that
It was essential that the prosecution
be allowed TO introduce testimony per.
tanning to acts of the defendants prior
to July Is, asserting that the prosecu-
ton wished TO show that Currie went
east, TO Boston, and returned to De-
troit on July Is, knowing that his
firm was hopelessly insolvent, and
that, in spite OF his findings, he kept
hist doors open and continued to take
the peoples money until July Is.
when receiver was appointed and he
was forced to close his Office. He also
intimated that there was a tacit un-
derstanding, or agreement between
Currie and Case tn continue the bust
ness regardless of their insolvency,
W.
that the information set forth that
the alleged conspiracy and embezzle-
ment occurred on July Is, and he
that the prosecution should
not be allowed To go before that date
or after July Is, when the receiver
was appointed for the Currie business.
to prove Its case, either in regard to
OF embezzlement. II the
were given the leeway re-
quested. IL would be at variance VIII
the liberties guaranteed by the con-
stitution, Mr. Henderson further ar
gued. The prosecution should be
Obliged to show q prima facie case or
conspiracy on the date set forth in The
information and contine It's proof 10
the date Of the alleged verbal agree
ment. July IL. between Currfe ana
Case i'm regard to conspiring to cheat
an defraud the complaining witness.
Attorney Frazer contended that the
prosecution should first prove Its al
legation OF larceny or embezziement
before being permitted TO Introduce
testimony in regard To the charge oi
conspiracy. He then argued that the
defendants were not guilty OF stealing
Mrs. Gray's money; that they sent
her order to their Boston agents, Hay
den. stone 4 Co.. for her so shares or
Nipissins stock, and that the defend.
ants went into bankruptcy before the
Boston agents could deliver the stock.
Assistant Prosecutor Aldrich set up
,Contfpue ON page 1AB
----- ,.
For q. g and Foreign Patents go 10