Evening journal., 1913-09-13
SENDS CASES
OF BAKERS TO
HIGH COURT
Continued from First rage

Continued from First Pagc.
nesses one a foreman Of the defend
ants bakery. who testified that he
had adjusted a certain machine /
which Is used in part to cut the /
dough into loavcs so as TO cut a loaf (
of the dough which would weight n /
~ ounces. and further that he was
! instructed by the defendant to make .
d loaf large enough when baked that /
would weigh l6 ounces.
Z The other witness said he was
public accountant but that his
speciality was to install cost systems
of bread making that he was en-
nloycd for sometime by the defendant
and thar he was engaged in installing
this system in tho defendants place
Of business on the 23rd OF August
last. and that by his record OF that
day there was aT11 pounds Of dough,
out of which Was produced 1924
loayes Of bread: that this shows 2
general average Of tho weight Of p
loaf of dough 60 be l7.5 ounces: and
that usually there was a sbrinkarc
Of little over ono ounce after the
dough was baked into the broad
Counsel for the defendant contend
nd that because OF the foregoing
facts there was no intent Of the de-
fcudant to violate the law above
quoted. and therefore the defendant
should be dismissed.
IN the case against Wagner Mr..
Mcknight testified that he bought
ono loaf Of wheat bread at tho de-
fendant's place of business On tho
23rd day of August last. and there
after weighed it and found ii TO
weigh II ounces.
The defendant testified that he had
always instructed his mon TO make a
loaf Of dough 10 weigh II ounces. so
as TO make good loaf Of bread
weigh when baked. rs ounces. and
in this he was corroborated by his
Counsel for the defendant coutended
that having issued these instructions
there was no intention of the defendant
TO violate the law and he ought, there
fore. 10 be dismissed
In one ease against Moynihan. Mr.
Mcknight testified that he bought a
, loaf Of wheat bread az tho defendants
place Of business on the 23d of August
and thereafter weighed il and found it
70 weigh l2is ounces.
No evidence was offered IN behalf OF
the defendant. but counsel argued that
the law was unreasonable aud was not
good law. and that IL was not within
the province of the legislature TO hx the
weight of q loaf OF bread without al
tho same time liking the price.
/ In the case against Charles r. Huber.
r Mr. Mcknight testified that no bought a
oai of bread ~ the defendants place of
/ business and weighed il and found il TO
, weigh l2i, ounces
The defendant offered no evidence.
hut his counsel made the same conten-
tions as was made in the Moynihau
case.
IN the case against McC,ovcrn. Mr..
Mcknight testified that hc purchased a
Loaf OF bread at the defendants place
= of business and weighed il aud found
IT 20 weigh l3k ounces
In rross-cNaminaton Mr.. Mcknight
stated that the place where he purchas-
ed this bread. by common reputc was
70 condu,tcd by the defendant. and tur
I, thor that the defendant in conversation
I, with him. after his arrest, had practi.
- caly 50 admitted
: The defendant testified that he di,
y not conduct tho place of business where
ihe loaf OF bread was purchased. but
4 ON the contrary IL was conducted by a
,s corporation. Counsel offered in evidence
r certificate Of Incorporation and sun
(. dry licenses TO support the defendant
r contentious
= These cases are not cases wherein thl
,r Municipal Court has final jurisdiction
St and ] sit only to bind the accused bl
at the next Court of General Sessions
If | consider there is probable groun,
for the accusatiun." according to Sec
tion 10. Chapter o. Cope p. 735.
NJ II ihc State in these cases has made
N out what is called prima facic ease.
am bound and obliged 10 bind them viii
surety for their appearance at the tris
- court
$ am convinced that in all these case
pr there is probable ground for the accu
~ sation.
ne / do not think il lies within my prov
III incc 10 determine whether or not it i
er necessary for the state 10 prove intent
ld or whether tho question of intent Is no
CO question which should 60 10 jury 4
to be determined in connection with Nh
1g other facts in The ease
el The contention that the law Is un
70 reasonable and ls not good law. or d
ye other words. that the law is unconstitn
40 ticaiol. Is entirely beyond the scope of
20 preliminary hearing. where tho onl
question. according 20 the statute. is 4
determine whether or not there H. prob
able ground" ior the prosecution
II. In tho case against Mcf,overn there
Ic- an issue Of fact 70 he determined. tha
I'M IL whether the defendant by his aeeu
ith Z old tbe hrend or tho corporation sold i
,et and tins issue must be determined by
art Jury
ed Let III ~ the defendants he held
In 800 bail for the appearance Of each
he them AZ the next Court Of General Sc
sions.
lot ------------
Inc NEW ATTENDANT At FARNHU RS
es- Frank Rogers, better known
es- Frank Johnson. who for many yea
ith has resided with Mr.. and Mrs Dav
md / l. r,l.v - fAonrCcfau-r Id