Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1914-11-17

| titude of the court. II is nothing less
than an inquisition. 1t is improper"
Attorney Wood then asked for the
filming of Bruner for contempt. IL
think ii is time for this court to take
some steps to make this witness an
swer these questions. / think that the
witness should be fined for his abso-
lutte defiance in refusing to answer
A fine of $1,000 and not less than sin
months solitary confinement is pro-
per-"
There was a lull of some several
minutes. Attorney Dietz' objections
did not come. The silence was broken
when Judge Olmsted ordered the jury
to retire and then he asked for some
information on the motion.
Something Has Happened
Attorney Wood responded: zone
of the inherent powers of the court
is to hear testimony. Otherwise all
cases are a farce. \ witness may be
reached with brides and threats and is
immune from testifying in every crimi-
nal case where this would be done.
1T is self-evident here that some
thing has happened. Something may
happen to other witnesses, and at that
moment the force and power of this
court is gone" Mr.. Wood cited SUI
preme court ruling which he claimed
was similar to this case and which he
said bore out his argument.
Attorney Dietz answered that the
witness had right to stand upon his
constitutional rights and refuse to an
swer. Both he and Attorney Shallberg
cited cases from the supreme court
and later Judge Olmsted retired.
Refuses to Fine Witness.
After returning to the cou-. room he
stated that the fifth amendment to the
constitution of the United States
stated that no person could be COM
pelled to give evidence against him.
self He went into the merits of the
question and discussed the rulings of
the supreme court and ended by stat
ing that he would have TO oyerrule the
motion to fine Bruner.
A recess was taken and following 1t
Attorney Wood asked that the court
be adjourned until tomorrow morning,
in view of the turn that the case had
taken. Attorney Dietz objected. de-
trial. stating that the mere desires of
the prosecutor shall not be allowed to
overrule the paramount interests OF
the defendants" The court sustained
Attorney Dietz' objections.
But the next question which Attor-
ney Wood asked precipitated another
argument similar to the foregoing.
The question was similar to the for
mer. but restricted the matter. 1t
was:
did Vanderbeke in 1912 prior to
Dec. 1, deliver to you money to pay
MagilI for the purpose of permitting
the saloonkeepers of East Moline to-
open on Sunday"
Sheriff Bruner answered the same
as before. and Attorney Wood asked
that ne be punished for refusing to-
answer. Attorney DietZ held that the
question was the same as previous but
Judge Olmsted said that in one way it
was the same but in others different.
Attorney Wood again asked for
recess until tomorrow morning, but
the court granted it until this after
noon.
Burners answers to some OF the !
questions asked at the opening of the
trial this morning brought laughter to
the spectators, particularly when he
inferred that Attorney Wood made the
statements to the grand jury that the
prosecutor asked Bruner this morning
II he did not say before the inquisi- |
toriaI body. In one instance the court |
ordered all laughing to cease, stating
il was no laughing matter.
A moment later Attorney Dietz
burst into laughter in spite of the !
order of the court.
Judge Olmsted overruled the second |
motion made by Special States Attor-
new Wood, to fine Bruner for contempt
Of court.