New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1921-04-06
SCHEI ARRESTED
FOR FOURTH TIME
s(Continued from page ~

FOR FOURTH TIME,
Continued from page ~
certainly to be complimented upon his
first effort, which proved quite sue
cessful.
Third Case Continued.
The third case against Editor Schei
for alleged libel upon Albert Pfaender,
complaining witness, came up for hear
ing before City Justice N. Henningsen
in this city, Monday morning. The
defendant was represented by Attorney
R. L. English of Tracy, who, when the
case was called, objected to the juris-
diction of the court upon several
technical grounds, among them being
the claim that the prosecution could
not be maintained in Brown county,
but should be brought in Redwood
county. County Attorney W. T. Eek
stein of this city called attention to
the statute under which the. charge
was brought and which, he contended,
authorized Brown county as the place
for trial. The justice thereupon over
ruled the objections.
Affidavit for Continuahce.
The defendant, through his attorney,
then filed afidavits on which to base
a motion for continuance, claiming
that Attorney, English, as we'll as At
torney James II. Hall of Marshall, who
is also said to be Schei's counsel, were
unable to try the case until April Is,
the date set for the two previous hear
ings, and also claimed that copies of
certain public records were necessary
to properly defend the case, and that
these copies could not be obtained for
some time. Mr.. Eckstein, opposing
this apparent subterfuge, called at
tention to the fact that the present
case was different from the original
one, and that, for the present prosecu-
ton, only witnesses from Lamberton
and New Ulm were necessary.
Based Upon Comments.
| The third case against Schei, and the
one under consideration before Justice
Henningsen, Monday morning, is
brought on account of the publication
in last weeks issue of the Lamberton
Star of an article anent Schei's first
arrest, and which is claimed to contain
libellous terms and statements. It
was also pointed out during the pre-
liminary hearing that the affid Wit
presented by the defense was not
sufficient, because it did not name any
witnesses nor state the testimony
which they were expected to give, as
required by law and the decisions of
the State Supreme Court. Attention
was also called to the fact that in a
civil suit, if a continuance were granted
on such showing, it would be re-
versed without .question, but this being
a criminal case, the state could not
take advantage of the error, as it could
not appeal.
Citations Disreg arded.
Justice Henningsen evidently dis
regarded this phase of the law and the
ISupreme Court decisions and intimated
that if the publication of the article
originally complained Of was discon-
tinued hereafter, until the case has been
decided, he would be disposed to grant
a continuance. Attorney English, on
behalf OF his client, gave the court a
half-hearted promise that this would
be done, and Justice Henningsen
thereupon announced that he would
continue the case until April 25 at
10 a. m.
Other Charges Pending.
Following the courts decision, At
torney Pfaender announced that he
had several other charges to prefer
against Schei and was going to insist
upon having one or more of them tried
before April Is. He chara cterized the
delay asked by the defendants counsel
as subterfuge to drag out the matter
until it was too late to bring it,into the
May term Of the Brown county district
court, and claimed it as his right to
have the matter determined speedily,
one way or another, in view Of the re-
peated libels, which he claims Schei is
l ~, III ;clo n bo,,k L;,,o