The Detroit times., 1912-11-19
'ENUE CHANGE is
UNDER AMUSEMENT

Prosecutor we'll knows IL when h,
Skis for change OF venue"
Then Mr.. Hunt took another tacl
nd pleaded with Judge Phelan mo
b make an order which could be con
rued as showing that you do not be
eve In home rule!"
Thenheadded that II the Judge die
ecide TO send some OF the aldermen
nt TO the crool, croor ruralities, ht
Rould not send all ten. and especial
should not send Ormond f. Hunts
lent, David Dosenthal.
He interpreted "a jury OF ones
eers" TO mean jury OF men brought
D. In the same environment, and sur
bundled by the same influences as the
efendant, he said. He expressed the
psitive opinion that II would please
per cent OF the people OF Detroit
have the aldermen tried right here
Lets not run away from this coun
W with these trials because the prose
Itor says In substance that he Is not
opular here said Mr.. Hunt Let's
calm. Let's take plenty OF time to
bis matter"
Would you run the risk OF having
be convictions set aside even If all
lire convicted?" was another angle
his argument: a neat reminder ia
be presiding judge OF the right OF
ppeal to the supreme court. Il
pnt claim that the question OF juris-
lction In change of venue matter
hs ever been decided adversely to
Their contender In this state. but |
b claim that IL il q very serious
sestion." he added.
But TO get back to the naughty,
hughty newspapers, and the way Mr..
unit says they do business. IL Is al.
lost too horrible to print. while the
rand jury Is In session, but the pub
must be enlightened. Mr.. Hunt
iid that nobody should believe the
ewspapers, which would knock the
fosecution's claim for q change of
taue, on account OF publicity. into a
pcked hat.
He said that once, while he was
rosecutor-as he was--a newspaper
an came into his office with a story
| printed and asked him what hi
bought about It's truth, and he re-
lied that the lands" and the "thes''
ERE all true, but all the rest was q
|e.
. And he said the newspaperman
romptly told him that that was per
|aps true, but he was going to print
anyway, and the next day would
rint q denial, and SO he would have
|wo sensations instead OF one. Then
Er. Hunt said that, OF course. there
as some truth in the story, just
Rough to make the rest look plausi-
le. And then he added, that, OF
purse, he was forced to give an ex-
|'eme illustration to show how the
|bwn Ii torn up, according TO the
Prosecution. by newspaper accounts
q the aldermanic trails"
He said that In the Ascher homicide
|ase, "the police collaborated with
he press to publish everything that
BE widest imagination could con-
pre- up" but said that they got a
|iry In that case, not only once, but
bur times, and got a conviction.
Insult To Detroit.
Mr.. Hunt referred to the aldermanic
Uses as not really as great public
Interest as homicide trial. He said
was an insult to Detroit for the
PROSECUTOR TO assume that some De-
|oit jurymen would not tell the truth
Fhen examined. And he said that the
was wrong in its assump-
Ion that Detroit was torn from stem
b gndgeon" by public sentiment ana
las over "a matter OF a little 500
|r 5000 charge against the aldermen. .
|, IF IL was graft, and IL II was all
|dded together Il wouldn't add five
Tents to the taxos OF anyone within
tearing Of my voice." said Mr.. Hunt.
He quoted the act creating the SUI
|eEior court Of Grand Rapids TO sus-
|afn his contention that the recorders
|ourt has no power to order a change
Ii venue. In the Grand Rapids act. a
|lause Is inserted. stating that the
|ourt shall have power to order a
|hange of venue. He held that the
|caal court came under the same
lass Of limited courts as the SUI
perior court OF Grand Rapids, and
nd no such clause In it's charter.
wilkins Argues for Chance.
Special Prosecutor wilkins, In a
nasteriy argument, pointed out that
,hange OF venue is power inherent
hall courts, under the common law,
nd held that no special enactment
lause was necessary.
As to the authority under which the
|upreme court decided that II was un-
constitutional to arrest an Alpena
umberman, and take him to Mason
|or trial. Mr.. wilkins declared that
vas indisputable, but pointed out that
hat case was not parallel, In that
Ikese cases were started, under the
aw. In the county where the offenss
b charged, and then application was
made to have them removed.
More important than trial In the
iicinage OF the offense, said Mr..
wilkins, n the so-relative clause, by
IN impartial Jury OF his (defendant'sJ
eeSrs,' and he held that IL was for
he court to decide whether such I'm
PARTIAL Jury could be obtained here.
He declared that the ~ aldermen
arrested here, represent 20 per cent
pf the people, and SO their cases
would arouse much more interest
han homicide case OF no matter
|That proportions. even though Mr..
Hunt commended that the matter of