The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1913-02-07
JUDGE RICHARDS
DECIDES CASES
OF OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH
VIOLATION OF CORRUPT
PRACTICE ACT.
Many indictments ouashed Through
Teehnieailties Due to Weak
ness Of Law.

Special Dispatch TO the Intelligence.
STEUBENVlLLE. o.. Feb. G.
Judge h. G. Richards maintained
the excellent and impartial line OF
Jurisprudence that has characterized
the bench during his two terms by a
very comprehensive decision in che
alleged corrupt practices violations on
Thursday morning Il is the big final
act In his term on the bench and he
acquitted himself with his usual abIli.
~ and dignity.
He quashed six indictments aud
gave reasons. sustained by law and
judicial precedent. for the same.
holding that the remedy provided in
the corrupt practices act was not
used in these cases as Is specifically
provided before the grand jury gets
its jurisdiction. thus giving the de
PENDANT chance to disprove wilful
intent to file a false statement.
The indictments against Messrs.
Augustus Bernier and Henry LAWYER
were held to be defective and were
quashed. In all the other cases emu
merated the act was held to have
been violated and the motions to
quash were overruled. The cases de-
cided are as follows:
Those ouashed.
For exceeding the expense limit al
lowed under the corrupt practices act
John A. Mansfield, J. &. Belknap.
W. c. Brown. Samuel Stark.
For attempting to purchase vote of
Henry Wilson. judicial committee
man-Henry LaWler. A. f. Bernier.
Those OVerruled.
}. G. Belknap. one filing false state
ment. one furnishing shotgun.
James Gilson-Furnishing keg OF
beer.
Richard Gilson-Three for hiring
workers
Samuel stark-one for promising
an organ.
Ira Blachburn--One for promising
an organ. This latter. the court said.
should be quashed in plea OF abate-
ment.
Judge Richards decision. was as
follows:
The motion TO quash is sustained
in the J. 4. Mansfield case because
no petition was filed first.
In the matter Of J. G. Belknap. for
fling a false statement. the matter
was never filed in court by a petition
hrst. as the act provides. There is no
statement that money was expended
except for what he was entitled to
eNpend il. only that he exceeded the
amount. IL II disposed OF as was the
Mansfield Indictment
The Indictment against W. &.
Brown Is the same and comes under
the same provisions that "A petition
should have been filed. Same dispo-
sition.
The case OF James Gibson. for
promising and furnishing = keg of
beer was held to be a violation of The
act. Motion TO Quash oVerruled. He
held that this Oyerruling does not
finally settle the case. IA the indict.
ment can sin further be attacked.
Richard Gilson's three cases are
practically the same for hiring work
crS for candidates. u * asked they
b" Quashed because the indictmon-,
did not set forth for what services the
money was given. The indictments
do set il forth clearly. Motions over
ruled.
one indictment against Samuel
stark comes under the class with !
4. Mansfield's case. A. To the STARK
case for promising an organ. II can
not be- qudshed because IL is vioil.
ti01 81 the act
In the cases AGAINST Henry Law.
Ter and a. T.. Bcruisr. the motions
We're sustained because the indict.
ueut was dpf.c tivp
Ira Blackburn. for promising an o.