The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-08-30
RANDOLPH HEARING
BROUGHT TO CLOSE
Testimony Win Be Submitted To
Governor Without Recommendation
Unless One Is Requested.

The last of the testimony In the In
vestigation of the charge against JUS
tice OF the Peace Edwin s. Randolph.
OF Hamtramck, Of accepting brides
from John Marquette. the slot ma
chine 'magnate," was given before
Circuit Court Commissioner May,
Tuesday afternoon. The testimony
will be submitted TO Gov. Osborn,
some time next week. without any
recommendation, unless the governor
requests ole.
Attorney Louis McClear, who rep
resented Randolph in the investiga-
ton, was given until Wednesday,
Sept. 6, TO object TO testimony OFFER
ed on the ground that IL Is irrelevant.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Aid
rich reserved the right TO submit
further testimony In case that strick-
en- from the record on motion OF Nc
Clear makes II necessary.
Upon the decision of the governor
depends Justice Randolph's fate. II
the governor decide that Randolph Is
guilty of accepting brides, he viii be
removed.
The greater share of the efforts OF
the defense, Tuesday, was to show
through a former constable, August
Hobert. that an Official attempting to
enforce the gambling laws In regard
TO slot machines could not secure the
support he deserved from the prose-
cutiug attorneys ONCE. The efforts
OF the assistant prosecuting attorney
were directed toward breaking down
statements that reflected on his
chief, Prosecuting Attorney Van Zile.
Hebert was the principal witness
called He told about seizing slot ma
chimes from Charles Gomond's saloon
In Crosse Pointe township. Gomond
brought suit against Hebert and was
given Judgment for the value Of the
machine by Justice Trombly. Later
the case was taken to the circuit
court, where Judge Mandell took the
case from the jury and declared that
there was no cause for action.
Now in this case, did you ask
Prosecuting Attorney Van Zile 20 de-
fend your" asked Attorney McClear.
Il object" shouted the assistant
prosecutor. THAT is not relevant to
the case"
The commissioner sustained the OBJ
lection.
We'll, you employed your own at
torneys to defend you, did you not?"
continued McClear.
Hebert said that he had.
Hebert told of seiZing another ma
chine In Badly Ortman's place and De-
ing sued by Ortman. A judgment IF
$3.50 was given, but before Hebert had
NJ n ~kau1a 40 annaal The caaa n :. ~
intended to do, the Judgment was
marked paid, and the case dropped.
Hebert said that he stopped seizing
because Prosecutor Van Ziie
refused to o. X his bills bur the as
sistant prosecutor In his cross-exam-
nation showed that the prosecutor
had simply referred Hebert to another
man In the prosecutors Office who was
better acquainted with Hebert's work.
The name of Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney Jasnowski was brought In
to the testimony when Hebert said
that lie had asked him concerning
the selling OF the machines which,
II bad been testified, were sent TO
the county building. refused there,
taken to the storehouse of the dry
man. uCOt6C ShOuthp lHCu uChNtTtu
at the home Of Arthur Pitton, slot
machine man, and finally turned over
to John Marquette. Upon being asked
why he did not seize those machines
when he knew that they were being
carted from place to place, Hebert
said that he had consulted Jasnow-
ski and was told by him that he could
not legally do so.
Finally, Mr.. Aldrich forced Hebert
to admit that although Prosecutor Van
Zile had never encouraged his taking
machiner, he had never made any
objection.
"He didn't tell me to, or he didn't
tell me not to-" said Hebert.
David Belyea, a special deputy
sheriff who said that he does a great
deal of work for the prosecutors Of
fec, was the last witness called. He
said that he had never known OF
County Detective Churchills seizing
a slot machine in the last two years
but that he might have done SO.