The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1919-09-25
BASEBALL JURY DISAGREES.
Continued from Page IL

persons present was turned over to a
charitable institution
This was objected to by the state
as irrelevant and immaterial and was
excluded by the court, and the de-
Tense took an exception. The money
had been turned over to the Knights of
Columbus to take care of its war def
cit. The statute prohibits the exercise
OF any business or employment on Sun
day except works of necessity and
charity.
Attorney Daley further offered to
show ''that the employment in which
this respondent was engaged was not
sport or play or game under the
terms of the statute. - On the state s
attorneys objection this offer was ex-
Guided and the defense excepted on the
ground that "whether or not his en-
ployment was within the terms of the
statute is "a question of fact for the
jury and not for the court.
The defense further offered to show
Sthat baseball was not invented I'M
til 80 years after the act was passed
under which this complaint is made,
| and that the legislature in passing that
act could not have contemplated, nor
| iIiitndcu W HdNt IL CONtI IUt
with which the respondent is charged. -
| This was objected to as irrelevant and
! immaterial was excluded, and an ex-
ception was allowed
| Bernard Dunleavy, another member
OF the ball team, was called and At
| torney n. D. Clawson for the defense
offered to show by him "that this re-
spondent was volunteer in the service
af +hn ~, l.
two years in intensive training and
fighting; that he was in the front line
trenches during the fighting in France
at the sne-Marne, at st. Mehiel, Ray
vile, Verdun, and Chateau-T hierry
that in at least three of these fronts he
was gassed; that his health was affect
ed by the service and by the gas in
lection, and we offer to show by this
witness that it was necessary for the
respondent to have exercise in the open
air, that BASEBALL was a proper anc
necessary form of exercise for this
respondent. On objection by State ::
Attorney Gibson the offer was excluded
and an exception was taken on tbs
ground that the offer was question OF
fact to be determined by the jury anC
not by the court.
Attorney Daley then offered to show
by two physicians, who were not pres
ent and whose names were not stated
but whom Attorney Daley asked to b,
, considered as witnesses for the pur
pose of his offer, that the 'exercise
which Johnson went through on tn,
fair grounds were a necessity unde
the contemplation of the statute. Thi
likewise was objected to and excluded
and an exception was taken on TIT
ground that the fact was for the jury
to find and not for the court to state.
Witness Dunlevy was excused with
out having testified, and both sides an
nounced that they rested.
In his argument State s Attorne.
Gibson declared that it was the dut,
of every citizen to see that every Law
was carried out regardless of the senti
ment of the community. That, he said
was the test of good citizenship. HI
said that by the admission of the de
Tense the respondent was guilty an,
that under their oath the jury coul'
bring in no other verdict.
Attorney Clawson said that a yer
diet of guilty would brand the respond
ent as criminal as a crime was
crime, whether it be large or small. Fl
said the Sunday law was placed on tn
statute book in 1887, not long after tn
days of witchcraft and belonged in tn
same category If there was any rea
e sonable doubt as to whether the re
;. spondent was guilty. as to whethe
what he did constituted a violation o
e the law. he must be acquitted. No ev
G dence had been introduced to sho'
that there was an umpire, scorer or tn
e regulation number of innings, in fac
) there was no evidence that Il bali gam
was played.
G State + Attorney Gibson in closin
d stated that by what the defense ha
e admitted it was very apparent this
t the ball players were playing ball, the
e certainly were not holding a prayC
meeting As long as the law is on I'll
3 statue books it ought to be enforce
+ he asserted. and against the rich an
l. poor alike. whether the offender hv'
Il on Toad hill or on the Patch and whet1
p er he play baseball or golf or somethir
II else The question is the plain one
y whether the respondent violated Il
law of the state.
Is In his charge the court told the jul
y they were not to take into account pu
t. lie sentiment as to whether the la
es ought to be enforced or whether it w
r an ill-advised law. The policy of t,
state, he said, was to protect an inn
cent respondent as much as to convi
a guilty one. He charged that the c
ereise of the activities connected wi
baseball, such as running, batting a
N throwing, come within the prohibit
of the statute in that it constitutes
{, sport Were they engaged in a gar