The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1910-02-28
Judge in Public Statement
Mildly Rebukes Lawn Now
er Official and Justifies the
Action Taken.
SENTENCE FOR LIFE
FOR GEORGE PIPER
Court States That When Man
Completes Present Sen-
tence He Will Be Re-arreSt-
ed by Prison Warden.

Henry c. Fox. Judge of the Wayne
lcircuit court. today issued a statement.
setting forth in a clear and compre-
hensive manner his position in the
prosecution of George NJ. Piper, the en-
!bezzler of the F. 4 n. Lawn Mower
icompany's funds. He answers John
IN. Lontz. president of the corporation,
who, on Thursday of last week, criti-
cized Judge Fox because Piper was not
prosecuted for burglary.
Piper was brought back to this city
from Hartford City, Conn, on a charge
of burglary last week. An affidavit
for cmbeZZlement was also filed
against him. On Wednesday of last
week, he was arraigned in the circuit
court. An effort was made to prose-
cute him on burglary charge, but
Judge Fox would not sanction this and
Piper plead guilty to embezzlement.
Was Much DispIeased.
Mr.. LOntZ was very much displeased
at this attitude of Judge Fox and took
occasion to publicly criticise him. Be-
cause he believed this censure unjust
Judge Fox decided to answer his at
tack in a public statement, but not un-
til today had he opportunity to pre-
pare it.
Piper was placed in the Michigan
City pcnitentiary Saturday by Sheriff
Linus Meredith and his deputy, Elmer
Eggemeyer.
Piper anticipated when he was SEN
fenced that he would gain his liberty
after serving two years. This dream
has been shattered. BY the action ta-
ken by Judge Fox the former salesman
is practically insured Imprisonment for
the remainder of his life. When he
serves the fourteen years on the en-
bezzlement conviction, there is a war
rant charging larceny and burglary
awaiting him at the state prison.
Judge Fox's statement made today.
is as follows:
Statement Of Judge.
One of the unpleasant duties that a
judge of a court has to perform is to
decide between persons who bring
their differences into court. AS a rule
both sides are thoroughly impressed
with the thought that they are right
and should succeed. The judge must
decide between them and as it is i'm
possible for him to decide in favor of
both parties, the result is that the par
ty who wins will be entirely satisfied
with the decision while the losing par
ty will. be displeased and disappointed
and will generally console himself by
finding fault with and censuring the
judge for doing him what he believes
to be an injustice. This l. always ex-
pect, for it is human nature: but when
a party who is dissatisfied with the
decision, makes use of newspaper col.
umns for the ostensible purpose of dis.
judice in the public mind against the
judge, then it is only fair that the
truth should be known.
Known From Childhood.
have known MIR. Lontz from his
childhood and have always regarded
him as an honest, upright and honor
able man. l have watched his success
full business career with much gratifi-
cation and pleasure and l am slow to
believe that he would willingly and
understandingly do me an injustice.
AS far as the Piper case is concern
cd, the facts are as follows: never
heard of Mr.. Piper until he was arrest
cd: didn't even know there was such
n man. When he was arrested in Con
necticGt. l read an account of it in an
evening paper. and naturally supposed
that an application would be made in
the usual and ordinary manner for his
return to this county for trial.
Ii this had been done, the proper pa
pers would have been prepared by the
prosecutor and. under the direction OF
the court. would have been placed in
the hands of the sheriff with instruc
tions TO go after the prisoner and re
turn him here for trial at the expense
of the county. This, however. was
not done: but this now makes little
difference, for Mr.. Piper was, by the
chief Of police. brought back to Rich
mond and delivered to the sheriff.
Unnecessary Expense.
This. Mr.. Lontz says, was done at his
own expense. which was entirely un
necessary: if the usual course had beer
pursued. the necessary expenses woult
have been paid blythe county. Whe,
the prisoner was returned. | was noti
fled hs the prosecutor who informed
me that Il charge of embezzlement was
filed against him. which he believed
could be sustained. He likewise in
formed me that charge of burglary
and larceny would likely be entered
agains: the prisoner. but that he was
not sure the evidence available would
(Continued on Page Five)