Evening journal., 1920-06-15
No THEFT OF
LABELLEBOY,
FRIEND SAYS
Continued from FIRST Page,

General Satterfleld had Mrs LaBelle
explain her correct name. which was
Estelle schreiner. She was formerly
a Miss Lamb Of Kent county, expla-
nation being made that "LaBelle" was
a professional name used by Schreiner
for exhibitions. he and his wife be-
ing acr0bats.
Mrs. Schrelner told OF LaCrolx com
ing TO their home in Smyrna between
II and II O'Clock the night before the
alleged kidnapping took place, seeking
entrance, even trying to force his
way into the house When he was
denied admittance, he was heard TO
say, Il Will get even" or words to
that effect, she testified The child
was taken the next morning while
playing on the street.
on cross-eXaminatiOn by Attorney
Golfer, Mrs. Schrelner admitted she
had received a telegram from La
CrOiX the day after the child was
taken from smyrna, stating that I'VE
are In Buffalo. Don't worry. Special
delivery following" 10 being further
shown that LaCroiX had said or writ
ten II the child was wanted she could
come 90 Buffalo.
An attempt was made by Attorney
COtter 10 get from Mrs. Schrelner 90
say when she FIRST met LaCrOix. but
this was objected to by Deputy At
| tOrney-General Saltor0eld.
The States attorney and Messrs
Cotter and LaFevre had a heated dis
cussion over the admissibility Of Ger
tain testimony which counsel for La
Croix desired to try 10 show the prev
| i0us relations OF LaCrOiX and Mrs.
/ Schrelner, including the Introduction
| or certain letters alleged to have been
written Mrs Schreiner by LaCrOiX.
Magistrate Wood ruled that the letters
were irrelevant at this particular time
as the only thing the State had TO
| prove was that Of a prima facie case
| against LaCroiX as TO the taking away
OF the child.
Attorney Cotter created a stir when
he asked Mrs. Schreiner, DO you re-
/ member when you told me you were
the wife OF LaCroix?"
Attorney General Satterneld object
ed and ordered the witness not 20 am
swer the question, which she re-
Trained from doing
Another tilt took place, when At
torney Gotter dwelt on the phase
OF the law with intent 10 dsiain
and conceal such child from It's par
enis,' etc. claiming that no intent
had been shown and that IL the State
] ~ AANNNNNNN lNAA'u WAA NNN' MANN IMA
Of the Warrcnt "malhciOusly. fOrci-
bly, or fraudulently had. take OF
carry away or entice away a child
etc,. that he should also rely on
the last part that Of "delan and con
co3l. etc"
At this point. Attorney Cottei
asked for a postpOnemcnt OF The
hearing for a day or two until
| stenographer might hi soczied Ia
take down the actual testimony a,
10 misht be given on both sides
This was refused by The macistrate
Attorney Coiter then introduced
telegram supposed TO have been sen
by IA Crolx TO Mrs. Schrelner, show
ing that there WAS no intent TO de
/, tain or conceal the child
Attorney Cotter submitted seVera
letters alleged to have been write
, by Mrs Schrener 10 LaCroix
When asked as 10 any convcrsatio
she had with LaCroiX. she denied hay
ing had any recently. When the ques
, tion was put 10 her. "Whcn did yOl
/ finally give him up" objection wa
raised and she did not answer.
Mrs. Schreiner admitted that sh
wrote LaCroix about 1--WE weeks ago q
stay away and That was the last tim
she had written him.
Mrs. Schreiner testified that shl
never gave her consent for LaCroi,
TO take her hoy away.
Edwin Schreiner or LaBelle wa
next called as witness. and eX
nlain9d The dual names used by him
one the correct name, Schrelner, AM
the other, LaBelle, a brofessiona
name
schreiner told OF the information
he h'ooeiAd concerung th1 disap-
pearanoe Of mis- boy. ne being en-
} ploved as a pressman in Atlantis City
When asked if ne had ever me
LaCroiX he recalled hut once. ab0u
two seconds one day when LaCroi
came 10 their home inquiring for
relative OF his wife's. Tie denied Civ
ing consent 10 LaCroiX % take On
child away. Attorney Cotior soush
10 show Schreinar and his wife ma
! been separated for some time an
only recently were reunited. but On
Line OF Questoning was objected to-
Schreiner admitted that his wife ha
, had the custody OF the child about on
year
: AZ the conclusion OF the testimon
Z | Attorney Cotter asked that LaCrOi
4 be dismissed because 10 had not bee
I shown that he had detained OF con
I cealed the child as alleged In the com
/, plalnt
Attorney saiterneld asked that la
Croix be held without bail, as he fe
a sufficient case had been made on
to warrant his being held for Ia
upper court
Magistrate Wood took the view thi
a prima facie case had been made on
and as such he would order the deter
:, iion OF LaCroix without bail 10 ava
the action Of the Court of Oyer an
I Termlner TO be held most likely nel
month.