Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-01-07
Board Members by Vote ot
2 to l at $40 This After
noon Ruled That Saloons
Can Return to OttumWa.
CASE is APPEALED
TO DISTRICT COURT
Attorney Whitmore AM
nounced That Action Of
Board Will be Resisted;
Character of Men Upheld

BY vote Of 2 to the board of "a.
pervisors at 3: 10 this afternoon declar-
ed the saloon consent petition to bo
sufficient. The detailed resolution
showing the validity of the statement
was filed with the auditor. The drys
will take an appeal in the case to the
district court within thirty dayc, 40.
cording to the announcement of 1T.
torney c. w. Whitmore Immediately.
after the decision of the board was.
made.
The plea of the drys to invalidate
the petition rested on the boards ac-
tion with reference to the reputable
character of l.. A. Mongerson and John
Mcclure, two canvassers for saloon
petition signatures This was set
forth in the opening arguments to the
board by Mr.. Whitmore, who declared
that the petition on it's face showed q
majority of twelve Just prior to the
board adjourning to consider the case,
another withdrawal was filed, making
the margin eleven.
The vets rested their case after the
resumption Of the hearing at l:30 ~.
m. The arguments then began. They
were concluded at $50, and the board
consumed twenty minutes to make its
decision.
Whitemore's Argument to Board.
The opening argument In the hear.
ing was addressed to the board by
Attorney Whitmore. The attorney
stated to the board that the statement
of consent on it's face shows major
ity of twelve. I'VE have objected to
and withdrawn 341 Names" said he,
''and we have shown that three solici.
tors OF saloon consent signatures wer0
not reputable persons and because
Of this the names they secured are
not to be counted. II you find that
our evidence Of their reputation IL true
all the names returned by these men
can not be sustained according to the
Waterloo decision
Mr.. Whitmore said that L. A. Nom
gerson was proven to be not reput-
able person according to undisputed
testimony given by Witness Fielder.
He said that "Mongerson's flight to
parts unknown was q confession Of
guilt"
In the case of Ernest Davis, who
secured the name of w. r. Scott, Mr..
Whitmore said that Mr.. Davis was not
guilty of perjury. but that by Davis
testimony, the name OF Scott was
"doctored1 In the headquarters OF the
saloon men. He claimed the name
was forgery by some one in the
headquarters.
In referring to the case Of John Mo.
Guire and the signature of one wv. w.
Bruckman,'' Mr., Whitmore stated that
the whole affair was "frame-up.s
The attorney asked the board to find
the saloon consent petition insufficient
by ruling that the names secured by
L. A. Mongerson and John Mcclure
were not to be counted
Attorneys Argue for VETS.
The vets opening argument was
given by Attorney j. j. Smith. He
declared that the opposing side had
given clean bill OF innocence to
Ernest Davis and then touched on the
matter of Mr.. Mongerson and Mr.. Nc
CURE. The attorney said there was
no evidence to show that Mongerson
was conducting gambling place or OF
being gambler He recited the testi-
mony Of w. Fl. Mynard and G. w. Will (
son and ABE Jackson as to Monger-
SOH ROOu cHdFdCLer. III ne attorney
scoffed at the charge against John
Mcclure. saying that the evidence
was plain that Mr.. Mcclure was the
victim Of man who represented him
self to be "W W. Bruckman" He
said Mr.. Mcclure surely was not gull
ty OF any crime.
Attorney M. G. Gilmore declared
that the presumption is that Mr.. Mon.
gerson Is reputable person and that
the opposing side was to prove other
wise. Mr. Gilmore said that Mr.. Mon
gerson secured sixty-ntne signatures
and these men should not be dis
franchised He concluded by saying
that Mr.. Mongerson was not shown ia
be a gambler. Mr. Gilmore said II
was not necessary to refer to the Nc.
Guire matter.
The showing Of one witness against
l.. A. Mongerson was touched on BY
Attorney Jaques. He declared that
the state law would not consider the
testimony of only one man against
another. The attorney said that s. II.
Fiedler's testimony was unsupported
The closing argument was made BY
Attorney G.. l.. Gillies. He first re-
- N III