The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-06-09
HINTS
HE MAY THROW
OUT CRAFTCASES
May be Necessary to Start Them
Afresh, as Result of Attack
on Information
.ROTTENEST DOCUMENT
EVER" DECLARES HUNT
Act Under Which Prosecutions
Are Based Alleged to be
Unconstitutional

The rottenest piece OF paper that
| ever saw brought into a court By
prosecuting attorney, was the way
Attorney Ormund +. Hunt CLASSIFIED
the Information against the alleged
grating aldermen. Saturday morning.
in Judge Phelans court. as he proceed
ed to literally tear TO shreds the peo-
pies Indictment, With such success
that Judge Phelan openly limited that
the aldermanic graft cases might have
10 be started all over again.
Attorney Hunt appeared for Ala
David Rosenthal. TO combat Prosecu-
tor Shepherds application Tor an
amendment OF the information as h.ed
against the aldermen.
When he had finished his on
slaught on the helpless information,
the signature of Prosecutor Hugh
Shepherd stood boldly out. uncon-
tested. but Is different attacks in
front. flank and rear, had apparently
riddled the rest OF the document.
IF your contention Is well taken,
said Judge Phelan, ip taking the
matter under Amusement. Il shall
either order the prosecutor 10 APP
ply TO the supreme court, for writ
of mandamus. forcing me to grant
the amendments asked. or shall in
struct the prosecutor to Quash the
present informations. and proceed
over again, in police court, on new
lnformations."
In the first place, Attorney Hunt
cOntended that the original informa-
ton was void. as IL charged Rosen-
thai with two separate and distinct
ofYenses. under Act 1872. which is
held unconstitutional The act refers
t. public officials who shall accept
any gift-or gratuity: or corruptly
make any promise 10 accept such a
gift OF gratuity."
This language is held TO constitute
'duplicity" by Attorney Hunt. who
cites q supreme court decision. A
druggist charged with violating a law
requiring him TO keep memorandum
OF liquor sales, and also with failure
TO report such sale to the prosecuting
attorney. won his appeal, on the
"duplicity" ground. 1t was held that
an act charging two separate offenses
In one count, was unconstitutional.
Holding the original information
void. Attorney Hunt pointed out that
Ii could not be amended. He cited
the case Of the People vs.. Vogt, page
594, of Michigan report No. 1856, In
which the supreme court ruled:
Where the information fails TO aver
facts constituting an offense, II is
not subject to amendment"
The objection fled Saturday. sets
forth that the amendments" sought
by the prosecutor, charge a new and
distinct offense on which the defen-
dant never had police court exam
ination. or never waived.
Section 1890 OF the state law pro
vides that no information shall be
hled until such police court examine
ton, or such waiver. has been made.
The original information was filed
Sept. Is. 1919. and there was no at
tempt at amendment" until May.
1918, and meanwhile the defense had
framed its case on the information as
laid.
The information as filed. charged
with accepting 800 on or
about May s, and the amendment
charges him agreeing to accept a
bride on July IS, and with accepting
II on July 26
Attorney Hunt claimed that a man.
iamus proceeding in the supreme
court would be the easiest way to
settle the matter. and Judge Phelan
seemed to agree with him, though he
will not rule definitely until next
Wednesday.