Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1914-07-25

ment of 81 and costs.
How much were the costs? ?" asked
Mr.. Wood.
"s2O.s5. the usual court costs in a
case of that nature"
He then succeeded in securing a
statement from Schriver thai the
attorneys fee totaled 500, the differ
ence between the 500 paid by Tim
norman and the judgment OF the
court. Several times Wood tried to
find out what became of the balance
of the S131 or 1892, which Mrs. Tim
norman said she had paid to MagilI.
The court sustained all objections to
the question. because no foundation
was laid.
Mayor Schriver. partner of his
brother in the law firm of Schriver
& Schriver. testified to having re-
ceived S12O.s5 from Magill the day it
was paid over by the Timmermans and
of placing ii in the safe in his office
for his brother. The receipt which
he gave Magill for the money was en-
tered as defendants exhibit five.
Both of the Schrivers admitted on
cross examination their intimate
friendship with Magill
Denies Motion.
1t was at $3.50 yesterday afternoon
that Judge f. c. Graves entered his
ruling denying the motion of the coun-
sci for the defense that all testimony
given by the states witnesses be
stricken. Attorneys Kenworthy and
Dietz argued in detail on the motion,
reviewing each separate case and the
alleged overt acts charged in the in
dictment to bring out their claim that
the evidence furnished by the state
failed to prove either as separate acts
or as a combination of circumstances
that conspiracy to receive money for
the release of prisoners and to misuse
the processes of the courts was en-
tered into by the two defendants,
Sheriff o. L. Bruner and Lawrence NJ.
Magill. former states attorney.
AS soon as the court had announced
his ruling. the defense Immediately
proceeded on the next step in an eff
fort to bring the trial to a conclusion
without the necessity of introducing
the defense's evidence. The move
was an oral motion to have the court
instruct the jury in behalf of the de-
tense. This is a customary proceed
ure. the argument being that because
of a lack of evidence furnished by the
prosecution the court sitting at the
trial is duty bound to instruct the jury
to return verdict of not guilty. Judge
Graves resc<Ted his decision on his
final motiC~-Intil this morning.
The gist of the arguments entered
by Attorneys Kenworthy and DietZ in
support of their final motion was much
on the same order as for the preceding
motion. that is, that the state, by its
evidence. had failed to prove or in
troduced anything that even tended to
prove, such a conspiracy as it is
charged in the indictment had been
entered into by the defendants. Sew
eral cases from the statute books of
Illinois and other states were cited to
support the defense's theory that in
such an intricate conspiracy case, as
is the one now at bar there must be
proof submitted of a conspiracy to do
all the illegal acts charged in the in
dictment.
No Conspiracy.
ct believe" said Attorney Ken
worthy, in his arguments, that if
there is anything settled in the law of
conspiracy, it is that the pleader is
bound to prove the conspiracy as he
has alleged it. If he proves one diff
ferent from that alleged in the indict-
ment, the court is duty bound to find
for the defendant
THE last count of the indictment
states definitely that the defendants
conspired together, first, 10 permit
those to escape who were bound over
to the grand jury. and second, permit
the escape of those who had been in
dicted by the grand jury.
ION the last of these charges the
state has entered absolutely no proof
All of the allegations ust be proven.
not morely one isolated portion, which
we claim even hasn't been done, there
fore there is no case"
Attorney Haas interrupted Ken
worthy at this juncture, and reminded
him that the last count states allowed
to escape those against whom infor-
nation had been fled" as a correction
TO the statement that its purport was
those who had been indicted by the
jury"
The evidence entered by the state
in this trial." continued Attorney Ken
worthy. has been of the most fiimsy
ever heard in this court house. One
of the defendants in this case (mean-
ing Bruner) has been compelled for the
last year or more to bear the brunt of
accusations against his personal in
tegrity and good conduct in Office. He
is entitled in this case to have an in
struction to the jury declaring him
not guilty. He is entitled to have the
moral effect of an instruction to the
Jury so that he may go out before the
public and say. not that the state can
produce evidence to convict him be-
yond all reasonable doubt, but that the
court has said. it was not sufficient TO
90 TO the jury upon"
NORTHERN ILLINOIS VETS