The Sentinel=record., 1913-01-19
EXAMINATION BEFORE CIRCUIT JUDGE GOTHAM MAY TAKE
 A WIDE RANGE.
PROBE WILL to TO BOTTOM
Subpoenas to be Asked for Service on Number of Prominent Citi- zens as Witnesses in the
 Investigation of Fox Case.

That there will be sensational de. yelopments in the preliminary exami- nation of Big Charlie" Wilk, Joe Aberly, and Arthur Slavin, who Mon day morning. before Circuit Judge Gotham will be arraigned on grand larceny charges in connection with the Fox S20,000 swindle, was the gen eral prediction yesterday by those in close touch with the case.
 Subpoenas have been issued for some important witnesses, and others are to be asked for Monday morning when the cases are called. It is not assumed that any of the witnesses will fail to respond.
 Arthur Slavin was yesterday com mitted for brief period, but made a qualified bond shordy after appear ing before Circuit Judge Gotham. Wilk and Aberly still occupy cells in the county jail.
 Circuit Judge Gotham had the case before him yesterday for the first tune, not on the merits of the case. but as to when it sheuld be called for hearing. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in the circuit court room was the decision on this point.
 The question of bond for the ac- cused men was renewed before Judge -otham yesterday by the counsel for the defense
 Judge c. Floyd Huff argued that the maximum bond for grand lar ceny, the charge in this instance was sS,000. and that his clients were en- titled to bond in that sum. He be- lieved at least that each of them was entitled to the same bond, and he brought to the attention of the court that while Wilk was held under a $20.- GOO bond, each of the others were only held under S5,000 bonds
 Tt is necessary to take into con- sideration the sum alleged to have been stolen, remarked Judge Gotham
 Judge Leslie. for the defendants, cited that in the arrest of the Buck foot fake foot races. arrested here a number of years ago, Judge A. M. Daffie held them in the sum of $2 800 each and that in that instance the sum alleged to have been stolen was some S63,000, a sum much larger than the s20.000 alleged to have been stolen in this instance. He argued further that grand larceny was grand larceny, and that thief for $20 would be in as much contempt as a thief for $20,00O.
 Attorney w. H. Martin for the state answered Judge Leslie with the statement that while the Buckfoot operators were held on bonds of S2- 300, which was held to the court as precedent, yet 1t should also be held to the court that two of the Buck loot operators absconded and left their bonds. He al gued that Judge Huff wanted a $3,00O bond for each of tAe three clients in court, which would make total of $9,O00 in bonds 10 .e supplied, and that if the men ac- cused had stolen the $20,000, they would have a clean margin of $l1,- QUO profit, after they had forfeited their bonds. That would be very good days wages for an honest man, insisted Mir. Martin. He cited the bond that had been fixed in the fam ous Tweed case in New York, when Tweed had been charged with whole sale theft and graft. That bond was alxed at a million dollars, and It could not be made, and the argument was urged that it was prohibitive, put the higher courts sustained the point that as the sums alleged to nave been received were large, the bond should be i'll proportion. MT. Martin argued that the bond in any larceny case should pc sufficient to guarantee that the accused man, II they had the money could not make the bond and have anything left as profit from the transaction.
 Attorney John Hickey argued that the offense charged against these de tendaIts was one of the rankest pieces of strong arm work" that had ever been perpetrated. He declared