Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1921-04-22
NEW TRIAL REFUSED,
FENN|MORE, BABC0CK
AND COLE SENTENCED
Babceok Given Two Years and
the Other Two Defendants
Heavily Fined.
FIRST VERDICT ATTACKED

The Court of General Sessions
this afternoon refused new trial
m the casc of former attaches Of
the recorder of deeds office. who
had been convicted un the charge Of
conspiracy
The defendants in this case are
William q cole. former deputy re
coplcr. and Walter Rabcock and
Harry Fcnnimore. former clerks.
Fonowing tho denial of Tho motion
Tor new trial the icfcudants were sen
tcnccd chief lus;i,e Prnnewill an-
nouneing the decision. The sentences
were a. follows
William q Cole. $500 hnc. half the
cost of prosecution. or in default year
in thu WorkhouSc
Walter Rahcock two wears iwprison-
ncnt. ecgivmng today and ending April
"i lae3
lIarr, Fonnin,ore aned 5000. half the
cosfs ~ in default year IN tho work
houss
The wife and children of Fennimore.
who wrr, ir court wcpi when sentence
was pronounced code broke down and
Bab,ock had d.fbcuity In restraining his
feelings
~ court of General Sessions today
argument Was heard on the motion ot
counsel for William s Cole. Walter
Rahcoek and Harry Fennimorc. former
assistants ia the recorder of deeds Of
nrr. FOR a utw trial Cole. who was
deputy recorder and the other two. who
were clerks ip the Office. were recently
convicted on a charge of conspiracy IN
connection With the cmhczzlemCnt of
Sau. u.00o from the county ~ which Re
corder Furman G. Cole pleaded guilty
pu tho motion FOR new trial the de-
fcndants are represented hN ]. Frank
liall and Philip l.. Garrett. They con
cludcd their argument at II 40 whom
court took a recess, without announc-
ms i decision until o'clock.
The petition Tor new trial read by
NttnrnrN Z Frank Rail asked that the
verdict ~ tn jury y. set aside and a
HeW trial granted. ca the grour that
thr verdict Ras AGAINST tn .aw and
galusf th, evidence, Tho petition also
..f out thr fact ~ the court calling at
t.ution nf 'hr lur' tc news article IN
thc morulng paper. .n which comment
s,as made on the Z, idcrce as being very
damaging 20 william g Cole and the
other defendants
Waa lnsuficlcucN ~ The c,idenCe. Judge
tall aald eversihing shat Il was proved
Walter. BabeoCk did in the Office. u was
H th. fne 81 his duty a. 30. And with
i..fereure "a I-eunimure. he said the
evidence showed that h. was only a
trans. rlhsug clerk Further. that a
conspiracy must be proved before the
t.ts of any one 81 tho three defendants
.suM bc csnnected with the acts Of
lsurnan d colo ID q conspiracy 70 en-
hegTlr
Thc arFumcnt II Phlp =. Garrett
attarutt faI William - cole dcal'
8rgeit vih fht term .conspiracy in
eai contemplation Asserting that al
th, evidence adduced .n The trial was
,lrolmsianiial ht said that in It's ap-
fcafiou Il was ,lrtrly insufficient 4
s4nport i verdict 30 guilty
Refcrr!ng 20 Jh, hcar.ng and news
sriirl, lr the morning paper. Mr. Gar
r.tt said that either consciously or sub
consciously q had had It's effect on the
mind of every juror 20 whose attention
il had come SO far as we know.
said Mr. Garrett every man on ina
turv may have read that article and
have been influenced by = IN making
up his verdict
Deputy Attorney -tieneral Switzerland
fnr the State. IN resisting the motor
for a new trial. said the argument o.
counsel for the defendants was merely
a resume 81 their argument before the
Jury. and said they had overlooked the
lncance 81 certain evidence OF q
documentary mature.