Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-02-01

be true John Mcclure has been con
victed Of uttering forged instrument
Wilson has been convicted of perjur.
and the others have been convicted
That is not the position taken by tn
Iowa supreme court in the Waterloo
case The affiant MILFORD in that pro
ceedings signed his name as witness
to one or more petitions when In fac
he did not witness the signing Of the
names thereon. w. 8. Wilson in this
case holds the identical position thai
MILFORD did, and the supreme court re
versed the decision of the trial judge
before whom MILFORD was given q
clean bill of reputation. MILFORD could
mot tell how many he signed up. Viii
son in this case, could not tell on the
stand whether the men whose sigma
lures he said he witnessed were black
or white. In the case of k1tto. he Is
shown t, have been guilty of violating
the liquor laws of Iowa. He pleaded
tguilty Ct the disorderly house charge
in the police court, and this charge
covers a multitude Of crimes. Why
did not the proponents produce Kitto
on the stand and have him show just
what was the nature of his crime un-
der the disorderly house ordinance?
Genochio committed forgery when he
was told by G. e. Kendall that Ken.
dali lived in the sixth ward, and he put
in the petition as coming from the
first ward when there was Kendall
of the same initial in that ward. That
is purely forgery.
Mongerson W. Fielder.
"Mongerson said on the stand that
he was not a gambler. Everett Hum.
BILE testified that he played poker In
Harry Leonard's room when Monger.
son sold the chips The opponents
said that Humble was not reputable
person. We know that. We could not
have a witness who had played cards
in that hole and not be disreputable.
The room is the home of convicted
bootlegger. The burden of proof is on
the proponents in this case. 1t is up
to them to prove that the assertions
we make and those made by our wit
nesses are not true. Why did they
not have Harry Leonard on the stand
to testify as to what was going on in
that room over Mynard's drug store.
They referred to the reputation OF
Reed Fielder. Fielder said that Mon.
gerson told him he had fixed it with
the chief Of police. his brother-in-law,
and he wanted to give Fielder some
money to run his game another week.
They said that Fielder did not report
this to the police. Reed Fielder
would have been a fool to tell the
police. What he ought to have done
was to take the money and then pull
the joint. They say this gun man
Glen Murdoch, Leonard and Monger-
son were up in that room and sat down
from s o'clock to midnight and told
stories. The court surely knows how
much this testimony amounts to-. Then
we introduced Mrs. McHaffey, who
said that Mongerson asked her to use
her influence with Fielder so Monger-
son could run his game a month
longer. Mongerson went to her house
and displayed a roll of bills in tho
presence of Walter Campbell and his
wife. Why did not the opponents pro-
duce these two witnesses to prove
that Mrs. McHaffey said an untruth
An effort was made to impeach Reed
Fielder with Witnesses Scott. Scofield,
and others who knew nothing about
the mans reputation of the past year
or so. We produced six we'll known
business men who gave Fielder a clean
bill. '~S
"The money used by George Clifton
to get Withdrawals with was not furn.
lshed by the drys nor used to their
knowledge. It is apparent that he
was simply tool Of the vets to get
is in bad or that he was a character
who was actuated to satisfy a person.
ii grudge. None Of his actions are
to the contestants" In !
this instance, Mr. Whftmore cited
numerous law cases wherein the acts !,
IF an individual were not answerable |
by party whose knowledge of the &C.
lions was not shown.
Mr.. Whitmore in conclusion briefly
to the solicitors who received
money for circulating the petition,
maintaining that their names should
not count for there was an influence
here that could not be mistaken by
he court. In support of this conten- |
ion, Mr.. Whltmore cited several law
cases.
In the course of his argument. the
attorney asked the court to make q |
specific finding in case the petition was
found sufficient. If the petition was
declared insufficient, the court was ad-
vised that the drys did not ask for !
specific finding.
Mr. Whitmore concluded his argu-
ment at 1888.
NJ. c. Gilmore took up the arguments |
for the vets Immediately after the
finish of Attorney Whitmore's argyll
ments. He dealt at length upon the
findings of the supreme court in sew
eral Iowa cases. He declared the |
clerks of election in the third and |
fourth wards were administered the
proper oath Of Office. Mr.. Gilmore !
hen took up the ruling the higher !
courts had made regarding the signing
Of names. The attorney said that the !
omission of letter. where there is a |
question as to how the name is spelled |
shrould not be the cause of throwing |
out the name. Mr.. Gilmore told of the |
charges made against L. A. Mongerson,
J. M Kitto, John MCGUIRE. J. Fl. |
Genochio and w. S. Wilson. The at !
torney stated that unless the offenders !
were found to be habitual violators
they should be considered reputable
as to the charge made that l.. A. Mon
- -