The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1910-06-22
|SE|Tz TRIAL
A WARM ONE
Attorneys Clash Over the
Evidence
DEFENSE WINS BIG POINT
State Held to Proving First
Offense.


one of the warmest "bootlegging'
cases that has come up for hearin,
in the court of Mayor Setter for
some time was that of John Seitz,
yesterday afternoon Squabbles be-
tween attorneys made the case inter-
esting.
When Seitz was arrested the case
appeared to be a simple one indeed
aud 1t was generally conceded that
SeltI would be convicted of second
offense. When the trial was com
menced, however, things took "a rath-
er different turn and without the de-
fendant going on the stand or in
PRODUCING any evidence. his attorneys
fought a hard battle and one that
they believe Will acquit him.
Seitz was represented by Attor-
neys Eymon and Thompson while At
tOrney John II. Clark and City Solicl-
tor Elmer r. Boyd appeared for the
state. AS soon as the case was un-
der way, Attorney Thompson intro
duced motion to dismiss the case for
the reason that the affidavit and the
warrant did not have the official seal
of the mayor as required by law. The
motion was submitted without argu-
ment and was overruled by his honor
The state introduced the testimony
of Chief Klinefelter, Captain Bond
and Oflicer Hostetter. They claimed
to have seen Setz sell a bottle Of
beer to Doc Harshberger. The offic-
crs peered through the windows of
the SeitZ kitchen and watched the
sale, they said. SeitZ's arrest follow
ed.
Here attorneys for the defense step
ped In and prevented the witnesses
for the prosecution from telling all
they knew of the affair. They were
held to answers of questions by coun-
sci and as a result the full story of
what they knew did not reach the
court.
The prosecution called former may
or Louis Scherff to the stand for the
purpose of proving that Seitz was
previously convicted for selling liqu-
or In dry territory. Counsel for the
defendant objected maintaining that
the affidavit was improperly drawn
and while II alleged q second offense
II failed to allege conviction on the
first offense. Mayor Setter ruled In
favor of the defendant, thus limiting
the state to proving Seltz guilty of a
first offense. The ruling was not
made until after a lengthy argument
had been made by both sides.
At the conclusion of the states
testimony, the defense filed "A motion
to dismiss on the grounds that the
affidavit charged the defendant with
keeping a place wnere Intoxicating
liquors were sold while counsel had
been attempting TO prove that the
accused was guilty of selling liquor.
Another motion to dismiss was filed
on grounds similar to the first motion
at the beginning Of the case. Mayor
Setter oyerruled both. Counsel claims
either of these grounds will be suiti-
cient to secure reversal in the high
er courts In case of the defendants
conviction.
When counsel concluded their ar
guments to the court adjournment
was taken shortly after five O'Clock.
one of the reasons for particul-
arly hard fight being made In this
case was the rivalry between Johh
II. Clark and the special counsel ior
the dry element, and Attorneys Ey-
mon and Thompson, who until recent
ly were employed by the drys, but
who secured a settlement of their ac-
cout by threat of a law suit against
the organization and who at that time
refused to take any more cases iof
the so-called Law and Order league
Attorneys Eymon and Thompson
are confident that Mayor Setter,
when his decision Is given, VIII acqu''
'