The Detroit times., 1912-10-05
SEVEN FREED, TEN HELD ON
CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY

surprised TO hear that he had said
repeatedly that II any aldermen were
discharged by Justice Jeffries, he
would have them rearrested.
Il was quoted to that effect?
When? By whom?" he asked.
II don't know what we're going to
do" he continued. Haven't the
slightest idea. You'll have TO watch
for Developments
Charles It. wilkins, who has been
doing the real work I'm court, said:
II haven't talked this matter over
with the prosecutor yet. We shall
have conference, and decide what
Is to be done. don't know what
course we shall pursue"
Justice JeffrIes' Decision:
Justice Jeffries In his decision, says
In part:
1t is not my duty to lay down the
law as l think II should be but TO as
certain, as nearly as i can. what the
law Is as laid down by the decisions
OF cur supreme court In it's latest ut
terances. and as the language of Jus
tice Hooker in the Liphardt case Is so
clear and unmistakable. 1 dnd II my
duty TO FOLLOW liz and hnd that under
the law OF this state at present. as laid
down In that case, there IL probable
cause TO believe that the crime OF con-
spiracy. as charged in the warrant In
THIS case, has been committed.
We are now confronted with the
facts In the case. as they bear on the
guilt or Innocence OF each defendant.
The evidence shows that the beginning
or the conspiracy was on or about the
NTH day OF February last. and that It
ended on the twenty sixth day Of July
this year. Therefore, all the acts and
statements OF those engaged in the
a. A NVaC - ~ 1. .lala ~.
made between those dates. are admis-
sible TO prove the conspiracy and the
guilt OF the persons engaged in IT,
Therefore. there Is testimony to show
charged in the warrant. existed. and
that defendants, Gilman, Brozo, Walsh,
Mason. Deimel Rosenthal. Tossy. Os-
trowski and Scnreiter, are guilty of
participation in IL.
Holds HindIe. TOO.
As to Defendant Hindle, while the
evidence is not so strong as in the
cases of the defendants above men
toned. In Difference to the ruling OF
my associate Judge stein. for whose
great respect. and before whom the
previous Hindle case was examined,
and the defendant held to the record
er's court on the charge OF promising
same state of facts as testified to in
this case I shall also hold Hindle for
trial to the recorders court.
l think the prosecution is entitled to
the option OF trying Defendant Hindla,
either on the charge OF promising TO
accept a bribe or on the charge set
forth In the warrant in this case to-
wit: conspiracy TO accept bribe.
" appears from the testimony !
think. very clearly that while Brennon
was working Schreiter. Schreiter was
also working Brennon, and that he
was anxious to extend. as far as pos
h.
he was TO pay money. In order to make
the best possible showing to Brcnnon
for the receipt OF the siXty-eight hum
dred dollars, and that he actually In
tended paying the aldermen much less
II the proposition went through. put
ting the difference into his own pocket
In regard to Defendant Watson, In
view of the fact that there was Bit
ter feeling existing between Schreiter
and Watson. think II highly improb-
able that Aid. Watson. who has always
borne good reputation up TO this
time. should. for the first time, put
and make the statements to Schreiter
as testified 10 In this case.
Wntson's Reputation Good.
AID. Watson's reputation as an al
weight in this case. as II stands with
out blemish. II Is conceded too. that
Aid. Watson took no money, made no
attempt to take any money, and his
no different from that OF Aid. Lodga.
Aid. Vernon. and other members of the
common council, who voted for the
resolution. And he also took the stand
and denied having made the statements
attributed to him by schreiter and sub
mitted himself to the prosecution for
cross-examlnation. And in the light
OF the attitude OF Witness Schreiter.
who has contested his own guilt AID.
watson's word. is OF more weight than
his. Aside from all this I have serious
doubts as TO whether the language
used shows such n meeting OF the
minds as would constitute an agree
ment.
All OF which forces me to the con-
clusion that there In not probable cause
to believe that Defendant Watson Is
guilty OF having committed the offense
charged In the warrant.
AS to Defendant Lynch. Schreiter
testified that he submitted the general
proposition OF Brennon's to Aid Lynch
head. and said All right. Ed and
walked back into the committee room.
I think Aid. Lynch's statements and
actions should be viewed IN the same
skrzycki. both Of whom the prosecu-
tion have failed TO include In tho
charge in this case because OF the i'm
probability OF their guilt.
Aid. SchultZ's answer to Schreiter
was much more specific than Aid
Lvnch's. because. In addition tn saying
"All right" he added. 1T am with YOU I"
But Aid Schultz qualified this state
ment by his subsequent conduct. when
he went TO others and repudiated the
proposition and threatened to expose
the conspiracy. His subsequent con-
duct showed that he did not consent to
become conspirator, but uttered the
words fif Schreiter Is to be believed)
to put Schreiter of.
Lynch Freed. Too.
II also appears that Brennon. the
private detective: had some personal
reasons for involving Aid. Lynch. as
he went TO his place OF business on
several occasions and talked to Aid.
LYNCH. and also talked 70 him on sew.
eral other occn sions and The alderman
refused the offer Of a bribe. notwith-
standing Brennon'g perslstencv and
when ne was importuned by Brennon
afterwards to come and get somc
money he fatty refused. His snbse-
nuent conduct and statements all go
to negative the idea that he had con-
sented TO accent bribe as charged.
I think that Brennon's statement To
over the telephone Ga very extraordi-
nary circumstance) to accent $500 for
his vote Is extremely improbable ahe
fact OF Lvnch's taking the stand and
denying the statements attributed to
him by Brennon his having lived IN
reputation. ell forces me To the con-
clusior that there Is not probable caus"
TO believe that Defendant Lynch IL
guilty as charged in the warrant.
As TO Defendant Roenig. Schreiter
testified that he nut the proposition to
and TINT the defendants reply was.
"that he was going tn vote for "
ANYWAY hut " that is the case. I VIII
make a speech for IT.