Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1913-09-09

THAW GLAD OF COURTS
ACTION; SAVES HIM $3.50
Legal Representative Of En-
pire State Has No Hard
Feelings Toward People OF
Dominion,
IN, rnn...a ,.u.n.l .rl..., le..en ...sl

fsy poaninl iousnst arr-tAL tcAcro Wissl
Coaticook, Que, sept William
Tlavcrs Jerome. was acquitted tonight
OF tho charge of having Ramhlcd on
Thursday last on the station property
of the Grand Trunk railway here while
waiting for the immigration authori-
tics To pass ON the case Of Harry Is.
Thaw. In dischargine him the court
apologlzed for the humiliation TO
which ne had been subjected
The hearing before Magistrate
Henry AmKcna. OF Shcrhrooke, lasted
loss than an hour. lt began a 1880
O'Clock and at $50 O'Clock the court
said.
Sir YOU are honorably discharged.
An attempt To hold an afternoon
session failed because the magistrate
felt he had no authority Co take prece-
dcncc over james Mckee, the Justice
af the peace who signed the warrant
for Mr. Jcrome's arrest Tonight
however the magistrate said he was
convinced of his authority to act and
the hearing moved with dispatch.
Joseph Beaunc. Coaticook lawyer
who said he varionsly represented the
Justice, the people and the criminal
code, interrupted the afternoon session
bur when he endeavorcd to renew
similar tactics this eyenng, he was
ruled out Of court.
when acquitted, Mr. Jerome
thanked the court. spoke flattcrInsly
of his reception in Canada and added
that he did not attribute his arrest
and brief Imprisonment last week to
tho thinking people of the Dominion
tlc took late train from Coatieook
tonight i'm order 10 be in New York
Tuesday ana viii return TO Montreal
for the arguments ON the latest ThaW
habcas corpus before the kings bench
at Montreal september B.
Tawnspcoplc packed the court room
when the hearing was opened tonight
Jerome looked straight at the court
and ala not glance at the throng which
was plainly hostile
A. G. Hanson, joint crown prose-
utor. opened the ease with the
reading of the complaint of MILFORD
Adrich mill hand who sWore n"
had seen the defendant playing
cadrs for money at the railway sta
ton Statutes were quoted to show
that this was an indictablo oftonse
punishable with years imprison-
mcnt
Samuel Jacobs of Montreal, who
has been retained ny New York state
in it's effort to return ThaW to Mat
tcawan, contondcd that the statute
applied only to gambling on public
conveyance proper The court took
this question under adyisenent and
called for Witnesses
Michael knight said he mad seen
the defendant playing "a little game
Of draw in the station yard, The
defendant had heon pointed out TO
him as jerome of New York.
Did YOU see him win any money
asked the Joint prosecutor
II saw "a bin changed answered
the witness. 81 could not say who
won it,"
The cross-cXaminatiou conducted
ny Mr.. jacobs was very short
why did You stop to watch the
Game?' ne asked.
Because it was in an automobile
and a man in front had little type
writer in his lap, a-writine. and
was interested"
This was New York newspaper
man writing his story under difficult
ties.
Jonathan Chesley, n,arly so years
old and snow white of hair and
beard. was the last witness. He re-
lated The now familiar details of the
little game of draw" and when
asked If he had seen Jerome win
money said promptly Yes SIR
How much ?'
Can't say" said the aged witness
lie was not cross examined
Summing up the prosecution
pointed out that Dominion law had
been enacted to protect the public
from card sharps on trains, steam
ships and other public conveyances
ana that according to the evidence,
William Travcrs jerome, late district
attorney of New York. had violated
this law Though vague, he contin-
ued, the statute undoubtedly applied
to railroad yards and stations, and
he asked for n conviction.
Mr.. Jacobs did not even sum mp
Tor the defense
To save the courts time he
said 1--WE will make no statement"
MAGISTRATE Mulycna said:
In rendering judgment I shall he
very brief ] believe every right
minded man I'm Canada regrets ana
lccls humiliation at the indignity
which has been placed upon you. 1t
Is cXcusable neither in law nor IN
Tact, The evidence adduced at this
nearing gives no reasons for the
charge which was laid against you