Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-05-19

The state and the anti saloon leag que
Won the first bout in the John Zundt
case. the first to come under the re-
vocation petition, in the district court
this morning when Judge j. NJ. Parker
denied the saloon attorneys application
for a change Of Venue 10 Judge c. B.
Bradshaw. This motion disposed of
the state began at once to present its
main case.
This evidence consisted Of showing
by witnesses that the saloon had been
open and that sales had been made
since the petition Of revocation was
filed. This was introduced 70 sup
port the claim of illegal sales. Leo
/ Mcnamara, a bartender in the Zundt
saloon, was the first witness called.
Judge Parker on Trial.
| II was in reality Judge Parker, and
not John zunds, who was on trial dur
| ing practically ali Of the forenoon ses-
| sion of court Whether or not the
court is prejudiced was the subject of
this mornings investigation.
! This was the allegation made in the
application for a change of venue. 1t
was supported by the affidavits of S.
! w. LaSheIle, T, d. McElroy, Council
man D, S. Good. ard Leo Mcnamara, !
the latter one of the defendants in the
case.
The state demanded that these sign
ers Of the affida1-its be brought into
court that the reason for their belief !!
might be ascertained. over the OBJ !
lection OF the saloon attorneys Judge |
Parker ordered subpoenas for them is +
sued
Three of Them Examined.
Three Of the four, LaShelle, McElroy !
and Mcnamara We're examined All I
three said that they based their belief .
that the judge was prejudiced on the /
reports and statements that they had I
heard, and on the conclusions they had I
arrived at by reason Of these reports
and statements All said they had |
never talked with the Judge and had
never heard him express an opinion
relative to the local liquo, issue. All
said they had heard he had signed the
alton petition. All also testified
they had heard that the judge helped
build the Sunday tabernacle. and part
of them testified that they had heard
that he had attended meetings Of the
Civic League The vast bulk of the
testimony was based solely on rumor,
report or what the witnesses said they
had heard None of the three had any
personal knowledge of the things which
they told.
Denied Attending Meetings.
When the evidence was in Bradford
asked for time until O'Clock to pro-
cure an additional affidavit, which he
said he might be able 10 get. and which
might be 10 the effect that Judge Par
ker had attended the meetings in the Il
Baptist church last Sunday afternoon
when the first steps were taken TO or
ganize the County Law Enforcement
League. When pressed for the name
of this person Bradford said he thought
it was Smith.
Judge Parker thought further time
was unnecessary and in saying so he
denied that he had attended the meet
ing He also denied that he had ever
attended any of the meetings Of the
Civic League or had ever been asked
10 attend or had contributed to the
lea que or had been consulted re garding
any OF its affairs.
Court Denies Application.
In denying the application for a
change of venue Judge Parker said:
Since yesterday morning I have spent
a good deal Of time examining the law
applicable to special proceedings of
this kind. also the law in general hav
ing to do with the application for a
change of venue. If it was because of
great public excitement and prejudice
against the defendant that a fair trial
was impossible it would be fair and
right to grant a change Of venue. But
in this application it is charged that
the court is prejudiced and is therefore
Incapable of giving the defendant an
impartial trial.
"If it We're true that I was mem
Der of the Civic League and acted with
them in bringing this suit, I should be
disqualified. But there is no truth in
that whatever so that this application
is not founded on the claim Of public
excitement and prejudice in the COM
munity.
Hold No Opinion on Case.
81 have never formed or expressed
an opinion about the validity Of this
revocation petition 1t is matter that
fact will determine, whether it is valid
or not 1t is claimed that the people
have taken away this right to sell IL
uuor which the law has provided that
they could do.
81 have not formed or expressed an
opinion and do not think I'm biased
for or against this defendant. From a
full examination OF the law applicable
to this case feel now that it is my
duty to deny the motion for a change
Of venue"