Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1914-07-22

i y
land, member of the May, 1912, grand
jury, said he couldn't recall whether
the Thomas Stark case came before
that body or not. His answers were
stricken from the record, as not re-
sponsive.
Have Legal Battle.
Yesterday afternoons session re-
solved itself into a battle on legal
points between opposing counsel as to
the admissibiIitys of certain evidence
that would tend to reflect on the per-
sonaIity of Sheriff Bruner, one OF the
defendants. The decision was given
by the court in favor of the state,
though not until after Attorneys Ken
worthy and Diet,i had proved in I'M
fshed manner their talent as pleaders.
Mrs. Harry Manwaring, wife of the
proprietor of the Camp Joy resort on
Rock river below the village OF Carbon
Cliff during the summer of 1912, was
witness on the stand. She held a s.
year-oId baby daughter in her arms as
she gave testimony and through the
arguments of the counsel. when the
defense entered its objection to the
question advanced by Prosecutor Wood:
During the summer of 1912 at any
time did you see Sheriff Bruner at
Camp Joy in company with Maud
Rush,"
II was evident by Judge Graves
move that he had sensed an objection
on this particular point to come up dur
ing the progress of the trial. This
point in the proceedings was reached
at O'Clock. The court excused the
Jury from the court room while the
discussion of the admissibility OF evil
dence was carried on. This was done
in order not to prejudice their minds
through matter foreign to the official
record. The jury did not resume their
seats until 4 O'Clock, after Judge
Graves in a carefully worded opinion,
had overruled the objections of the de-
Tense relative to the relations alleged
tn have existed between the sheriff and
Maud Rush.
Wood Explains Ground.
The court required Special States
Attorney Wood to explain what he
aimed to prove by introducing this tes-
timony, which was counted on to be
of a sensational nature. The prose
cutor read from the indictment and
the bill of particulars and maintained
his ground that such testimony would
not be in variance with the allegations
therein set out He said the state had
hinged its case on two vital points in
its effort to prove a conspiracy existed
between Bruner and Magill TO employ
tle processes of the courts in this coun-
~ TO release prisoners kept in custody,
in some instances by the payment OF
money and in others because of an obli-
cation or association with the prisoner.
Until yesterday afternoon the evil
dence presented by the state has all
conferred about the performance OF
alleged overt acts by the two defend
ants I'm which money, and money alone,
Uas the alleged basis for the release
NJ prisoners and the covering up OF the
transaction by the processes of the
courts. This was alleged and brought
ont in the Mitchell brothers cases,
where 800 was the consideration; the
Zimmerman case, where the sum was
s131 or SI32; the Nolan case, also a
500 transaction; the Benson case re-
cited yesterday morning, where $50
was alleged to have been paid over to
the sheriff;a $40 payment for the free
dom of Minnie Rogers, and the delivery
of a promissory note to Bruner by
George and Marie Goldberg in the sum
of S22O.S5. This note was never col
Iected, the testimony established.
This is Different.
But the Maud Rush case was differ
ent in its aspect from the others that
have before been introduced into the
trial. In this case, the indictment and
bill OF particulars sets out, there was
no money paid for the release OF the
woman from county jail, but her deliV-