The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1921-04-28

The cleanup of Kenosha county, so
far as the illicit dealing of liquor is
concerned, is to go on. Harry Cor
don, the first of the saloon men ar
raigned on charge of selling whiskey
lost his fight for the dismissal of the
case today and Judge Tully denied all
of the motions of the attorneys for
the defendant and held Gordon for
trial at the next term of the municipal
court.
With the announcement that the
test case had been won by the state,
District Attorney Peter Fisher de-
clared that he would proceed with the
arraignment of 81 other defendants
under arrest at once. Ben Loef was
the first case slated to be taken up.
1t is believed that with the clear de-
cision of Judge fully holding for the
state in every contention that the 9TH
er saloon men will hurry to waive ex-
animation and it is expected that pleas
of guilty will be in order.
Twenty-Five More Warrants Ready.
With the decision of the court in
favor of the state this afternoon, it
was announced that % more arrests
would be made at once. 81 have the
complaints in these 25 cases ready"
declared the district attorney, land
just as soon as they can be placed in
the hands Of the officers these men
will be added to the long list of de-
PENDANTS now out on bonds" Dupli-
cations of cases were promises in con-
nection with some of the most fragrant
violators of the law.
1t was admitted that the new war
rants name some men who have been
very prominent in the saloon business
in Kenosha but who have been con-
sidered as "immune." There is no
such a thing as immunity in these
cases." declared the district attorney.
eve have the goods on these men and
the fact that they may have been big
dealers just resulted in the warrants
being held up until after the first test
of the cases was over.p
TuIIy Clear in His Decision.
The decision of Judge Tully in hold
ing Gordon for trial is regarded by
many attorneys as a clear expression
Of the law. In the decision the judge.
says:
"The defense has moved for the dis
charge OF the defendant, giving three
reasons therefor, namely: THAT
the complaint is faulty owing to the
fact that it does not state the name
Of the person to whom the liquor was
alleged to have been sold; 2z-That the
testimony Of the detectives herein is
not competent; 3-That there is no
authority in the law for issuing the
warrant upon the complaint made
herein, for the reason that the jurat
is signed by the clerk of the court
instead of the judge of the court.
am of the opinion that the points
raised by the defense, as matters of
law. are not we'll taken, and that the
motion should be denied for the fol-
lowing reasons:
Cites Wisconsin Decision.
"1-The supreme court of this state,
in State VS.. Bielby, Fl Wis, page 206,
in a case similar to the one in ques-
ton, says: TT is objected that the
complaint is insufficient because it
does not specify the name of the per-
son to whom the LIQUORS were sold.
This is unnecessary. The offense com
planned of works no injury upon the
Individual rights of the person to
whom the sale was made and none are
supposed to be violated; and hence
the designation of such person by
name is In no way material to con-
stitute the offense.' The ruling of
the supreme court in this case has
never been changed and it would be
unwise for this court to do anything
but follow this decision.
Testimony of Detectives.
Practically everv state in the
Union where the point has been raised
has repeatedly held that the testimony
of detectives in cases similar to the
one in question is admissible, the con
zContfnued on Page 81