South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1916-05-25

The jurors deHberated long enough
TO take one vote, which was unani-
nous for acquittal.
Result of City Probe.
The evidence against the defend
ants has been secured through the
activity of Charles Dibler and Bert
Olmstead. members of Mayor KEEL
ler's detective department, who, act
ing under Instructions they said
from their superior officer con-
Quoted an investigation.
Following the failure OF the state
70 secure "A conviction after seven
attempts had been made. Pros
c.. r. Montgomery told the court
that it was apparently impossible to
secure a verdict OF guilty with the
present panel lie asked Judge Ford
to grant the continuance until next
term, that the evidence might be
given 10 another jury. which Mr..
Montgomery said, would attach
more weight TO the evidence and less
TO the manner in which il was Sc
cured. The court replied that he
would not continue the cases but
each must be tried this term as he
said at the opening of the court
session.
The prosecutor then moved that
the present panel be dismissed and
that an entirely new yenire, whose
! names should be drawn by the jury
commissioners be summoned. Judge
FORD overruled this motion. saying
that the court was not empowered
10 do this, and besides it would cast
a reflection upon the present jury.
In my opinion, each verdict re-
turned so far has been a correct
! one" ne concluded, in view of the
evidence that has been put on"
The state cannot take a change
OF venue" said Mr.. Montgomery.
Neither can it secure a conviction.
/ We have been at trial three days
and a portion of a fourth. In that
/ time we have had seven acquittals,
/ and il seems useless to continue the
| hearings before the present jurors
/ IN each case, with perhaps the eX-
| ception of two, the majority Of the
| jurors on the regular venire have
heard the evidence and returned the
verdicts. In those two instances
| there were two members of the reg
/ ular panel"
1t was at this point that Judge
| Ford told the prosecutor that if the
city administration produced such
! evidence it was not the fault of the
\ court.
Mr.. MONTGOMERY said that he
would not dismiss the cases, but
would try more cases in an effort TO
! secure a conviction.
! In the hearing in the selling liquor
on Sunday charges against Hayes
| two separate indictments faced him
I Che was for an alleged violation on
/ Jan. so and the other on Feb. .,
/ 1915. The state attempted TO intro
| duce evidence in both cases, while
/ the indictment of Jan. 50 was the
only one on which the defendant
was being tried. This testimony
J was not allowed in by the court.
ON the stand yesterday afternoon
/ i'm connection with the indictments
| against Emil Schellenbeck, officers
| Dlbler and Olmstead. while being
| cross examined by the defense, ad-
| mitted that they didn't know when
they were sworn in nor where. One
| said he believed it was at John Hib-
I herds Office, while the other said he
! didn't have the faintest idea. 1t was
! further revealed that Dibler thought
| the name of the clerk Of the board
! of safety was Harry something.
! II was further pointed out that
neither he nor his partner ever had
| any previous experience in seeking
! cut alleged law violators They were
! forced to admit that they did not
/ know from what department the
/ expense money for which they were
| reimbursed for their expenditures
! into law violations, came from.