University Missourian. [volume] (Columbia, Mo.) 1908-1916, 1913-09-16
TELLS OF FULTON TRIALS
Writer Summarizes Contentious OF
State and Defense.

charged with illegal FOtlnS last sprung. |
To the Editor of the Missourian:
The cases of the eight students |
with illegal voting at the
special city election held on May 26,
at which Prof. w J. Shepard was |
elected to the city council, came to |
trial at Fulton on Tuesday, Wednesday !
and Thursday of last week. 1t will |
be remembered that originally their |
trial was set for the June term of |
court in Columbia. At that time sew
eral substantial business men and at
torneys testified that on account of in |
articles published after the |
election by Columbia papers, the pub
lie mind had been so prejudiced that |
it would be difficult to secure a fair !
trial for the students. The prosecut-
ing attorney made no attempt to con-
trovert this, and the court granted the |
request of the attorneys for the de-
PENDANTS for change of venue. The |
cases We're then transferred to Cal |
laway COUNTY and set for trial on
8.
The large number of witnesses
both for the state and the defense, and
other persons who attended because
of their interest in the cases. crowded
the only hotel in Fulton and gave the
of a general exodus from
Columbia to Fulton. Among those
who gave their moral support to the
students cause by their presence and
were number of the |
best known and most solid citizens of
Columbia. A number of University
professors and students not connected
with the cases We're also present.
The students were ably represented
by Frank G. Harris, the Boone County
in the state Legislature, |
and Charles NJ. Hay, representative
from Galloway County and one of the
most eminent lawyers in the state.
Mr.. Titus of Cherokee. Ok, father of
one of the defendants, also assisted in
the defense.
The first case on the docket was that
against E. L. Joyce of the School of
Law. After the preliminary evidence
to prove the holding of the election,
the first important witness for the
state was F. S. Lonsdale, who was a
judge of the election. He testified that
he had endeavored to persuade Joyce
not to vote. Joyce insisted. Mr.. Ions
dale admitted that Joyce certainly
seemed to think that he had a right
to vote and that he believed he was
acting in good faith He also testi-
fled to the good reputation of the
defendant.
The next witness was Clarkson Rol-
Inns, another judge of the election,
whose testimony corroborated that of
Mr.. Lonsdale as to Joyce's determina-
ton to vote.
Ira 7. G. Stone was another states
witness. He testified that as a men,
Der of the Democratic Central Com
mittee he had always opposed stu
dent voting. He insisted that the
Democratic party was vigorously op-
posed to students voting in Columbia
and that he had told Joyce that he
had no right to vote. He also said
that he knew of no one who did be-
lieve that students ought to vote.
The state proved by documentary
evidence that Joyce in registering at
the University had given the date of
his birth as 1891, when it was really
1892, and he had also last fall dur
ing the presidential. campaign, in the
excitement and enthusiasm of
Democratic rally, made application to
the Democratic Club for assistance to
pay his fare to Brokfield in order to
vote, giving his age as %, when it
was really only 90.
Mr.. Joyce made a good witness in
his own case, admitting the facts in
regard to his registration and appli-
cation for transportation at the time
of the general election. 1t was shown
that he became of age on May II,
only nine days before the special
election, and his assertion that he in
good faith intended to make Columbia
his home and believed at the time
that he had right to vote carried
conviction to the majority of the
audience.
The attempt of the state to prove
that Mr.. Joyce had the reputation of
bully failed, even the states Wit
.nesses giving strong testimony as to
/ his irreproachable character. Mr..
Anderson, the prosecuting attorney.
also failed TO prove that Mr.. Joyce
had anything to do with the riot at
! the Star Theater.
The testimony in the Joyce case