The daily Gate City and constitution-Democrat. (Keokuk, Iowa) 1916-1922, 1916-07-13
The Aanew Case.

Tho Aanew Case.
To the Editor Of The Gate City:
In Tuesdays issue OF The Gate
City appeared an article headed
'sAgnew Freed by MILESTONE" in
which some statements were made
that would tend to mislead the unin-
formed, and in justice to this court
! deem 1t necessary to inform the
public OF the exact status Of this
case.
Mr.. Ballinger represented Mr..
Agnew, and Victor Solari Is represent.
ed by Frank Oertel. These informa-
June 49,, 1916, arraignment bonds
were furnished, and application nor
change of venue granted June 26, but
was not transferred to this court un-
til July l, it being the only case 30
transferred to this court. Although
am informed by the parties and
their attorneys that several other
changes had been granted, none OF
them as yet has reached this Of
flee.
Immediately on receipt of the tran
script in the Agnew case / notified
County Attorney McManus that the
defendant demanded an immediate
trial, and was ready at Q o'clock p.
M. Of that day. Mr.. McManus stated
that he was busy preparing to leave
the city, and could not, try the case,
and as defendant was entitled to a
hearing and that II he insisted on it
he might be able to have his deputy,
Mr.. Hamilton. comp down from Fort
Madison and try it, and that he would
see Mr.. Ballinger and see what he
could do in case he did not get in
touch with Mr.. Hamilton. Mr.. Bal
linger then agreed to set the case
ahead until Monday at o'clock, and
wrote Mr.. Hamilton, who replied on
Saturday that he himself was going
to Des Moines on Monday and would
be busy in Fort Madison on his re-
turn for the remainder of that week,
but that he cosld arrange to come
down during thn week beginning
July II. This letter reached this Of
flee Monday morning and defendant |
would not consent to continuance |
fof another week, and at once saw |
&C.. II. Henneman, the prosecuting |
witness. and told him Of the matter |
and to have his witnesses in court at |
Q o'clock and not later than 3, or to
let me have the names Of the wit
nesses to subpoena and we would
get them here He promised to let |
me know by 1880 and at noon he |
had not yet handed them In, saying |
he didn't know just what to do, but
would see Theodore Craig and see
what he could do At 2 o'clock de-
PENDANT came into court and was
ready for trial called up Mr..
Henneman again and told him to be
here, but he again said he didn't |
know what to do. At five minutes !
past 3 o'clock I again called Mr.. |
Henneman and told him that defend
ant demanded a discharge. Neither
| the prosecuting witness nor any 9TH
er person appeared for the state and
Mr.. Henneman said again that he
knew / could do nothing but discharge
the defendant, and that he would
have to let it go at that Whereupon
was compelled to discharge Agnew
for want OF any evidence against
him. He having plead not guilty.
there would necessarily have to be
some evidence before / could bind
him over. Police officers were not
surprised at my action, as they and
MIR. McManus had known for a week
or more that Agnew was demanding
hearing, and there was no under.
standing that the cases would come
up later in the week." because there
was but one case in this court, and
for my part l only hope the others
which I hear are to be transferred
| here, stay right in that superior
court.
Mr.. McMarus was right here in
Keokuk on Friday and Saturday, and
! 1 would think he could have strained
| point to spare couple OF hours
from his preparations for leaving
and tried this case, which ne knew
was demanding attention which the
law allows an accused person in such
cases. To say that could have
compelled this defendant to wait
until July 10 or 10 for a hearing
would be foolishness. If one month
is a speedy hearing then / am at a
loss to know what would be laches.
This court is in a position of forced
neutrality in these cases, and all
others. 1t can not act as prosecuting
attorney and court at the same time,
mo more than it could represent the
defendant.
In discharging defendant the state
is in no wise prejudiced. The grand
jury is bound to indict him if the
evidence against him shows that he
! has violated the law, and had |
bound him over the same proceedings
would have to be gone through with.
| l was in Montrose on Monday
morning, but / was in this office at
| 2 o'clock until 6 p. m, and one of
your reporters passed here; he made |
no inquiry regarding this case Had i
he done so he certainly would have
received full information, and where |
any one could have gained informa- |
| ton upon which to write the article !
in Tuesdays paper is more than / !
can guess.
1 have no use whatever for violat- |
ors Of the law, regardless of who
they may be. and If evidence is in
| troduced in this court which tends to |
show guilt, bootleggers or other vfo- |
lators will be bound to the grand jury
under bond suitable to the offense
committed.
Personal feelings have no connec-
ton with parties here. II they did l |
Ia