Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-09-16
'ownley And Gilbert
Have 90 Day Terms In
County Jail MetsdtT Them
CONTINUED from base Is,

ehalf, rave him no right under the
onstituuon or otherwise, to do IS,
was perfectly apparent to any per-
IN present that the dismissal Of Coun4
u was r. mere subterfuge. Defendant
oWnley had not taken the witness
land, had NOT submitted. himself to
ross examination by the states at
srneys and the attorneys for the
ate would therefore have no OPP
ortun.iy to reply to anything he
tgAt say, and ~prejudicial. to the
! E$Shts OF the state to have permitted
:ownley to talk to. the jury and make
tatements that were nc made under
attn and for the purpose, as his coun-
ell stated, to Justify himself before
he jury
Declined to Take Stand.
h defendant Townley had every
pportunity in the world to justify
Iimselft before the jury. It was re-
'eatedly stated by his counsel, in open
oulN and out Of court, that the de-
endahts Townley would appear on the
yitness$ stand and give testimony.
lad hes lone so, he would have. been
tsrmitted to make any statement or
Eplanatton of anything that he had
aid orsdone, or that he was charged
With having said or done; but he
allied to take the witness stand or al
ow the states attorneys to question
him regarding the accusations against
nm, thereby apparently desiring to
pace himself in a position where the
tttorfeys for the state could not reply
10 anything that he might have said
y the jury.
That defendants sought to obtain a
srejudicial advantage, is too apparent
o need comment. Counsel for the
ftate objected to his obtaining this
advantage, and defendant Townley.
lot being an attorney, and therefore
laving mo right to appear as such for
Ms coSdefendant, the objection was
nstained.s y
There is a very potent maxim in
squttK that: II a person will not
peak when he could speak, he will
pot be permitted to speak when he
would speak
This maxim was never more ap.
slicable than in the case of Townley.
Jury Legally Chosen.
Much has been said and written
~ the league press concerning the
tasgbeen an outrageous insult to the
Intelligent farmers who composed
hat jury. The Jury of IL men was
practically picked and chosen by
lefendants' attorneys. The defend
snts demanded and obtained. triers, to
PASS on challenges made on either
Tide, and there were but two chal-
enges submitted to the triers, both
pf which were interposed by defend
Ents, one OF which challenges wa
ound not true and the Juror peremp-
orily excused by defendants; the
,ther challenge was found true and
hesSuror excused. No other chal-
enge for cause was submitted. by
dther side to the triers. and when the
ury vas completed the attorneys for
he Defendants stated In open court
hat theXss~sre perfectly satisfied with
he jufYS In the face Of these facts
he Minnesota Leader. the official
brgan ,ySx the league, published the
statemeM during. the trial that the
court refused the defendants the
light ~toStchallenge jurors when such
jurors had disclosed absolute preju-
This statement, of. course, wa
tnoWnsP the defendants, their attor-
leys' ahds the writer Of that.statement
Who wAA. present, to be absolutely
talse, assifhe court had nothing TO do
With thes challenges to the, jurors in
my way,SSnor with the selection OF the