The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1920-09-22
I R Al OF { H|EF
CHANCELLOR TAKEN
Up BEFORE MAYOR
Motions, Demurrers and
Other Matters in Abey-
ance Are Overruled
by Judge
COMPLAINANT RULES
HEARING RECESSES OVER TO
THURSDAY EVENING AFTER
EXAMINATION OF TWO
WITNESSES.

You keep sending theHi oNei' ""'
I'll keep knocking them down seemed
to be the Song hit rendered by the
mayor. in the first scene OF the mu-
nicipal performance which was con-
ducted at the city hal last night
when the trial of Chief OF Ponce
Chancellor was taken up. the at'or-
nevs for the defense, Mathers ana
Coakley, introduced, on behalf oil theif
client four motions relating to meth
ode of procedure. etc, and the mayor,
as presiding officer of.the ooard o'
CITY commissioners, overruled them
all. in one, two, three order
The hall was crowded with observ-
ers and witnesses long before the
hearing began.
All the commissioners were present
as were also the mayor, the city at
torney. Mr.. Mason, and the assist
ant city attorney, Mr.. Ahern.
Complainant, Judge and Jury.
Immediately upon the opening oil
the trial, the defendant, through ms
attorneys, introduced motion which
asked that the mayor be disqualified
70 sit as presiding officer a. the trial
; because he filed and swo:e to ana
caused the filing of the complaint
and is named in the body oil the
complaint as a witness against me
defendant and is the personal eremy
CT the accused and would not and
could not. therefore, do justice to-
WARDS the defendant
Mayor Freeman overruled the mo-
tion, stating that as long as he
was mayor of the city, he saw no
reason why he should not sit as pre-
siding Judge at the trial.
Il 10 not know the method OF
procodure in case such as this'
bu. / do not believe we have TO
resort to methods pursued in Grim
inal court. l intend to use com
mon sense during this trial" he said.
IN referring to his lack Of knowl'
edge as regards the procedure OF the
case. the mayor stated that he de-
sired toe advice of the attorneys of
both sides.
Motion to Make More Specific.
The next motion Introduced by the
defense requested that the charges
against the defendant be made more
specific in that the first charge mere
IL stated that ut various and sun
dry times the chief failed to carry
out the instructions of the mayor and
I'd n NJ
forcement of the law, and that the
second charge named one case In
which the defendant is alleged 10 have
wrongly acted but which fails to name
"other men," and is not specific in
detail.
"Overruled."
The mayor Immediately overruled
this motion, whereupon the attorneys
for the defense appealed to the board
OF commissioners. The board by unan-
imous vote upheld the ruling of the
mayor.
The next motion demanded the board
of city commissioners require the COM
nlainant to elect upon which count or
charge. 1t will go TO trial, and TO dis
miss the other count or charge; the
reason assigned, that the charges fled
are not based on one and the same
transaction, but on separate and dis
tinct transactions, and could not leg
ally be joined. Mayor ovcrruled the
motion.
File General Demurrer.
The defendant. through his attorneys
then filed a demurrer to the complaint,
This demurrer set forth, first, the
charges are insufficient in law; second,
the charges are insufficient in law in
irat they are too vague an uncertain
and do not charge any offonse by
HIM committed; third that the charges
do not describe any offense with suf-
ficient particularly; fourth, that Sec
tion 465, Of the Charter and Ordinances
of the City Of Ardmore dated June
1920. Is unconstitutional and void
ana contrary and in violation Of the
Constitution OF the United States and
the Constitution Of the State of Okla.
homa: fourth. that It seeks to deprive
a citizen OF his property without the
fuc process OF law and confers no To-
gal authority or protection upon this
respondent; nth, that due TO the un.
constitutionnlity OF section i65. the
Continued on page ~