New Britain herald., 1914-07-28
GORDON ARRESTED
 AT AUsT|N,S TR|I
Complaining Witness Charged N
 Breach Of Peace aud Assault
CASES CONTINUED UNTIL THURsu

Both Men Enter Pleas of Not Gu} -Prosecuting Attorney William Gibney and Lawyer M. D. Sake
 Lively Tilt. Surprised and taken unawa when warrant for breach of q peace and assault was served on h| just before the case of Berlin T| Collector Elmer E. Austin, agai} whom he was appearing as compIal ant, was reached on the docket the Berlin police court this morni1 Nathan Gordon of Willow street, t] city, through his attorney, M. Sake, asked for a continuation of \ case so as to provide time to wo up defense. After considerable z gument on the part of Lawyer WI liam F. Delaney, counsel for Aust Judge George Griswold continul both cases until o'clock Thursdl morning.
 Austin's bond of $1O0, which wi furnished by w. ID. Dunham of Be lin at the time of his arrest yeste day morning, was continued af Gordon was paroled in the custody his attorney. Gordon was placed uI der arrest by Constable John Hacke only short time before court opene The warrant was sworn out th morning.
 It is safe to say that the cou room in the Berlin town hall has mi been so crowded with spectators ar witnesses in many years, it beir i'm possible to find seating accomm, dations for all those present TI Austin case is probably one of ti most sensational that has ever con up for trial in Berlin and it is attrac ing considerable attention, not on in Berlin but in New Britain.
 Both Plead Not Guilty.
 When his case was called the Be lin tax collector, who is alleged have given Gordon a severe beatil last Saturday upon meeting him New Britain road, Kensington, ., tered a plea of not guilty. Gords did likewise.
 Prosecuting Attorney William Gibney demanded retraction fro Attorney Sake in a heated argumel which followed the lawyers plea for continuation on the grounds that Goi don's arrest was so complete a SUI prise to him that he had not foun time to even discuss the circumstance with his client. The prosecutor too exception to statement which soun. ed to him as if Lawyer Sake elaine that unless he had happened to ] present as personal counsel for Go don, his client would have bet obliged to face trial without havir the opportunity of consulting h counsel.
 That remark was entirely uncallt for" interrupted the prosecutor, Tar I demand retraction."
 'I won't retract anything" ar swered SaSe, for l have not said an, thing to call for retraction."
 Gordon's lawyer continued thu Austin and his counsel came int court all prepared with their defeni to fight their case with all their wi nesses on hand. He felt that r should be allowed the same oppol tunity. -
 Argument for Continuation.
 Attorney Delaney expressed his dl  said, witnesses for the defense hs been subpoenaed at a great expens and it would be inconvenient fc them to be present in court again. Fl felt also that his clients reputatio was in the balance, for stories abou his alleged assault were being sprea broadcast and could not be stoppc until it was decided by the court ths he is not guilty of the charge againA him. He added that Gordon was Il court as a complaining witness an was certainly as well informed as h' could be.
 Even after hearing the uncallex for remarks which MT. Sake has jus made" began Prosecutor Gibney 'T will say that it has always been m! DOnCy while cOnnetteu WILT tnn court to give a man under arrest length of time to prepsrs his case" He stated that, with th< exception of the doctors who attended Gordon when he was at the hospital all the states witnesses were present and that he was ready to go ahead with the case. If, however, such ac' ton would be detrimental to the in -erests of any of the accused, the stated that he would np' be in favor of proceeding.
 Attornet Saxe stated that 1t would be utterly impossible for him to. Gp on in view of the fact that he had not even consulted Gordon in regard .o the facts of the matter.
 Couldn't Try One Case.
 Austin's lawyer then suggested hat his clients case be tried individu- lily but Mir. Gibney objected because t would injure the states case against he other party, and he was sus- i,,I