The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1910-02-25
SEVEN COUNTS
ARE DISMISSED
John DeGolley Wins Par
tial Victory.
COURT TAKES INITIATIVE
Prosecution Completes its
Testimony.
Clerk of Courts and Former Prose-
cutor Come in for Grilling upon
the Part of the Attorneys for the
Defense.

A partial victory was won this
morning In the common pleas court
by Attorney John ID. DeGolley, who is
on trial for alleged professional mis-
conduct involving moral turpitude,
when the court, after the prosecution
had completed its case and rested
dismissed seven of the twelve
charges filed and completely exoner-
ated Mr.. DeGolley i'm each of those
seven specifications. This was done
by the court without the defendant
introducing any testimony in his own
behalf.
The decision was rendered by the
court at the close of the morning
session, during which little tes-
timony had been adduced that was
harmful to the defendant
The opinion of the court was read
by Judge Frank Baldwin, of Bowling
Green The first charge taken up by
the court and dismissed Is Specinca-
ton No. r, which charges that while
acting as counsel for Ida Uncapher,
defending her in a criminal case, De-
Golley represented to her that her
case could not be carried to the cir
cult court unless all of the costs in
the common pleas court were paid
The court said:
1--WE fail to find any evidence that
such representation was ever made to
Mrs. Uncapher. II appears that Mrs
Uncapher desired to prosecute error
being dissatisfied with her conviction
i'm the court Of common pleas. In
carrying out that desire her attor-
ney made some preparation. Her at
tention was called to the necessity of
filing n bill of exceptions, which
would entail some expense and the
stenographer would have to be paid.
80 far as we can see the accused
fully fairly and properly advised his
client in this matter. Nothing was
said, according to the evidence, by
the accused to warrant the statement
by Mrs. Uncapher. Mr.. Uncapher
and Mr.. Layman were present at the
time and their testimony shows that
Mr.. DeGoley performed properly
the, duties of an attorney and coun-
sellor and did not say that the case
could not be prosecuted in the circuit
court without paying the costs of the
trial in the court of common pleas.
The second charge dismissed by the
court is known as specification No.
6, which alleged that Mrs. Ida I'm
capher paid $40 to Attorney DeGolley
to pay the costs of the case mem
toned In the preceding specification
and which II is claimed Mr.. DeGolley
converted to his own uses.
"The evidence shows that the stem
ographer was paid and that other ex-
penses incidental to carrying the case
TO the circuit court were not" said
the court "and II is very clear to our
minds that no representation was
made that this money was to be used
to llquidate the costs of the common
pleas trial.
The charge known as specification
No. was next taken up. This is the
charge wherein II Is claimed that At
torney DeGolley secured $40 to de-
posit with the clerk OF courts at the
time of filing a divorce suit for Mrs.
Minnie Carr and then filed a poverty
affidavit and kept the deposit money.
AS the court prepared to read the
finding on this charge. Attorney
Mouser of the prosecuting commit
tee made a motion to withdraw the
| charge.
Mr.. Mouser also withdrew the
charge known as Specification No. s.
In which DeGolley is accused of hav-
ing received $25 from Mrs. MCGOWAN
a divorce, applicant, and to have kept
the money.
The court next called attention to
Specification No. 10, wherein Mrs
Della Beck had testified that wher
Attorney DeGolley learned she had
found pooketbook containing $40
he wanted her to give him a mortg.
age for 5000, the money TO be paid tC
the owner of the pocketbook so thai
he would not prosecute the finder
for theft. Mr.. Mouser also with
drew this charge, it being eviden
that the charge was not sustained.
The court then dismissed Specihca
tions IL and IL in which Matthias In
gle was the all-important witness
for the prosecution. Ingle was sicl
In bed and unable to come to court
Attorneys for the defendant refused
TO go TO the bedside with the prose
cutting committee and take his tes
timony. The court dismissed tn,
two charges "for want of evidence.
The court said:
"It is proper TO say in justice to th
accused who has not yet had an op
portunity to be heard on any of tn
charges brought against him tina
these specifications. or charges, ar
dismissed, entirely and completely
and insofar the accused is entirely ex
onerated. The dismissal of thes
charges leaves for consideration
Specifications /, 2 3, 4. and 0, and a
to these we do not at this time ex
press any opinion further than tina
we deem it proper that the accuse
be heard"
Before dismissing the specification
the court said that they believed tn
dismissal of charges not proven b
the prosecution would expedite tn
trial and the dismissal was on tn
courts own motion in those speci
ficatiops not Withdrawn by counsel.
I'VE recognize the gravity of tn
offenses charged and the interest In
public may have In the case and W
have given and viii give the case ey
cry consideration"
When court convened this afternoo
the defense, with the accused took III
stand In his own behalf and In
faIaa. Hogoa ind N fba oo.,rt II