Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1916-04-22

~ 2.
whelming az in this one. The state
claims malfeasance and maladminis.
tration In once and think that we
can show these claims to be sustained
by the evidence.
Zone OF the defenses is that what.
ever mistakes or errors We're made In
these claims or in the keeping of the
books were made by the deputy. That
excuse is as old as the human race.
Another Is that whatever excessive
charges were entered were made only
through ignorance That has been
made many times before In cases of
this kind, Another Is that other sher.
IFS do it. That is old, too
The Jail calendar has been intro
! duced as evidence. 1t is long ex-
tended book and we claim that the
! tabulated statement OF Examiner Hunt
should be considered It Is computed
from the Jail calendar, Is competent
claim for the facts In the book. The
one Is made from the other In every
case when the examiner was not alb
solutely sure he m"v~ the defendant
the benefit of the doubt
Question on Payment.
"One question in this issue is
whether or not the sheriff received
! compensation for something he did
not do. The warrants and the testi-
mony of the state agents show that
he charged expense items on warrants
with which, he. his deputy or his car
had nothing whatever to do.
Then, that question of not know
ing, Of ignorance. say the state has
right to good service from it's Of
fcers. The defendant in this case
has shown by his own testimony that
he is incompetent. That alone Is suf-
! fcient to remove him. He says that
he charged mileage because he
| thought he was entitled to it. He
can't hide behind that.
Claim He Was Warned.
"The state has proven by the state
examiners and two members of the
board of supervisors that he was adj.
vised what he could charge and what
he could not. Officers must be judged
by their acts and not by their pleas
OF ignorance. The object Of removing
a public officer is not to punish the
officer but to strengthen public SER
vice and free 1t from an unfit officer
when the defendant in this case
made excessive charges on warrants
in his own handwriting claim that
| 1t was wilful The defendant claims
that he Is justified in doing this be-
cause other sheriffs do It, Why. as
long ago as 1921 and in as good a
court as the court Of Massachusetts,
that very question was up and the SUI.
preme body In that state decided that
that was no legal grounds.
This has the tendency to justify
the defendant in his actions. 1t don't
make any difference what others do:
the question Is what can he lawfully
charge and receive and what has he
charged and received? II 1t Is more
than the law allows him then the
plaintiff has made it's case. An un-
lawful act cannot become lawful by
usage.
| Entered In Books.
"The defendant claims that he has
had nothing or very little to do with
books and that II anything is wro z
the deputy is to blame. Yet he identi-
fed dozens Of instances in which he
had made entries in the book. Our
laws contemplate officers shall be paid
for actual services and their mileage
shall be for each mile actually tray.
eled He is not entitled to anything
he didn't do.
1T is unfortunate that the defend
ant has to be the first to suffer but
courts can't be Influenced by that.
Charles e. Doran, whom they tried
to make out crook is the one who
has been imposed upon, 1t is not this
defendant. Doran is the one who has
gone through this trial without the
smell of fire on his clothes.
Would Show Others Up.
"The defendant would show Sumner
Siberell as the instigator of this suit,
that Doran wants to be sheriff and ia
interested, that the county attorney
wants the law enforced and Is interest.
ed too. II it can be shown that the de.
PENDANT has been guilty Of corruption
and maladministration In Office then
the state has made It's case" Mr.. Gil
lies talked an hour and three minutes
jacques Is First Taiker.
10 r. Jaques was the first speaker
! for Mr.. Cremers side of the case and
he talked forty-fve minutes. He said
In part:
There is no doubt In my mind eth.
er that the evidence is overwhelming
in this case. 1t is, that's true, but it is
Overwhelmingly in favor Of the sheriff
Mr. Gillies made good law argument
but he used careful avoidance of the
facts of the case.
"The Iowa state supreme court holds
that good faith and custom Of officers
does constitute defense and they are
two of the important issues in this
case. 1t is not necessary to 60 out OF
Iowa to get the law on this either.
Observation-Disclosures is one thing, ex.
tortion and corruption is another. You
cannot have the last two without will.
full intent.