New-York tribune., 1918-06-18
their way to avoid this suggestion of

faint,
:. Personally" he concluded, "1 think
1T was mistake"
For the most part the defending at
torney dwelt upon the extreme mis-
fortune a conviction would be for the
several defendants as business men.
And he laid great stress upon the Grim
maj nature of the charge against them
That charge" he reminded the
jury, "is that these defendants used
the malls with criminal intent to de-
fraud. They are not charged with
mismanagement. They are not charged
with failure to keep promises. These
are matters for civil court"
Discusses Question of Doubt
Emphasizing the rule that in Grim
mai action guilt must be proved beyond
question of reasonable doubt before a
conviction can be returned, Mr.. Battle
continued:
"The indictment charges that this
ginning, and that it was never COM
mercial undertaking. Now, we say that
the evidence already submitted by the
government has already disproved that
contention. We say that the testimony
of Hupp and of Hammond and of other
witesses summoned here by the gov
ernment shows that this was q sub
stantial manufacturing proposition, en-
tered into by these four men-Hupp,
Theodore A. Campbell, Willis George
Emerson and N. F. Wilson, in good
faith. And 1t is the contention of the
defence that this was not a stock
selling scheme"
Three contentious Mr.. Battle ad-
vanced in support of the good faith he
thus claimed for the enterprise: The
character of the originators of the
scheme; the plan with which they
started; the fact that, though "they
met some OBSTACLES" they really did
get a factory and were engaged in the
production of some cars when the Fed
eral indictments cut short their career.
1--WE shall prove, l think" he went
on, that the measure of progress made
by these men justified their advertis-
ing their stock as reasonably safe in
vestment, which had vast speculative
possibilities. We shall prove that the
government was wrong in its conten-
ton that this scheme was a fraud from
Its conception and that these defend
ants knew and believed it to be a
fraud"
Describes Company's Formation
ueIGupOu NT. DdCLlo launCDeQ into
detailed account of the company's
formation, tallving at every point with
the account put forward by the govern
ment He traced at eulogistic length
the characters of the four original pro-
moters, qualifying only with respect to
Willis George Emerson, who, confined
in Chicago by paralysis, is not on trial
at present. Of his own client Mr..
Battle said merely:
was brought in to raise money. That
was his part of the business, because
he had successfully done that before
The version of stock division pre-
sented by the prosecution Mr.. Battle
did not attempt to gainsay, contenting
himself simply with declarin" that
such arrangements were quite ordinary
and that Wilson was "cntitled to com
pensation for the risk he took"
Finally Mr.. Battle, begging the
jurors again to consider how much was
at stake in the careers on trial, de-
manded that an acquittal be granted
and whatever difficulties there may
be: let them be settled in civil court -
William H. Garland followed with a
brief separate opening on behalf of
the defendants Humphrey and Clifford
and called as the first witness for the
defence Edward M. Hetzel, broker.
At this point one of the jurors was
suddenly taken i'll and proceedings had
to be suspended. If the ailing juror
recovers the defence will resume at
9:45 this morning