The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1913-11-26

Ia than the showing then made in
support OF the claims of the respond
ents
1t appears by the affidavit of
Thomas Raleigh that Joseph Callaghan
stated he was an eye witness to all
OF the acts. facts. matters and circum-
stances i'm which Louis Titan and
Steve Putrich met their death, and
that ne was I'm position To see and did
see such ARRAY.
Testimony is Material.
That the testimony OF Callaghan
is material and necessary To the de-
cerse Of the respondents is claimed br
them. II Callaghan was present at
the ARRAY. the prosecution do not
claim that his testimony would not be
material and necessary on behalf Of
the respondents. The prosecution pro-
duced anidavits of others who We're
present. who testify they did not sec
Callaghau That they did not see CAL
laghan end vet Callashan be present,
may nevertheless be true.
since the denial OF the former mo-
ton for continuance, il appears that
not only the respondents. but the
prosecuting attorney and his assistants
have been engaged diligently in m
effort 10 locate Callaghan. Both pros
ecuticn and defense have located him
I'm the city of New York as late as
ten DAYS since, but neither side has
-. Ia, a nj ~
ton with him.
There can be no question that the
showing made by the respondents with
reference To the witness Callaghan il
Of such nature as TO entitle them 10 a
continuance.
Tho showing made by the respond
cnts and by the prosecution regarding
Callaghan and the efforts upon both
sides 10 obtain his testimony and their
failure 50 TO do only would authorize
the exercise Of discretion of the court
in favor of the continuance, and a re-
fusal of a continuance under the cir
cumstances would reverse conviction
on the ground that the discretion Of
the court was abused.
"A Fair Trial"
THE remaining ground for a con-
tinuance relates 10 the claim of the
respondents that the condition is such
resulting from strike conditions, that
fair and impartial trial of the case
cannot be had at this time i'm this
county. Ahidavits to that effect have
been filed by the respondents, and af-
hdavits to the contrary have been filed
by the prosecution. The affidavits go
as far only as in the nature Of the
question they could So. namely, to the
CertifCation OF the belief of the af-
FAINT that the respondents can or can
not be given fair trial at this time
To entitle the respondents 10 a con-
tinuanCo on the ground of prejudice,
they are not obliged to show that pre-
judicc actually exists. Every person
on trial before a Jury for a criminal
offense is entitled to en- acquittal un-
less his guilt appears byond reason
able doubt, and il should also be true
that where a person is brought to
the bar OF this court upon a charge
that he committed a serious criminal
offense. and If for any cause there il
grave doubt whether the court will he
and unprecedented trial. he should be
given the benefit of such doubt
THAT a grave doubt exists whether
these men could be given a fair and
impartial trial I'm this county at this
time. no serious minded person ac-
quainted with conditions will deny
1t has been suggested by the pros
ecution that if the conditions in this
county are as claimed by the respond
ents. such conditions will not change
before the ensuing term of this court,
and that the court should order II