South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1921-01-19
JURY DISAGREES IN
S4BBATH Law Trial

| (CONTINUED FROM PACE ONE.)
week that Sunday is their only time
\ TO indulge in dancing
Deputy Pros. Hamborsky ad
! dressed the jury saying that it was
I not the point as 10 whether the
\ state law is being violated by other
! Sunday business operators but that
/ the question for the jury 10 decide
! was as to whether the defendent
/ had worked in his capacity as man
] ager OF Toxic on the Sunday in
| question. He endeavored 10 Loint
! ont where i. l.. Busch, assistant to
/ Mr.. Breinig, was entirely under the
/ directions of the manager and sub
/ ject 10 his orders and wishes.
Cassidy on Stand.
Following the failure Of the jur-
| ors 10 reach a decision in the case
| they were discharged by Judge Gil
/ mer. 40 definite date was set for
the second trial other than it will
/ be some time this weeks
! Following an hours cross exam
! ination by both the state and de-
/ fehse and the excusiug of a number
| OF the proposed jurors. the follow
! ing were chosen to try the case: G.
/ r. Davis, +. ]. Fenton. w. c. Cob
/ bier. l.. Witucki. I. @. Piel. J. II.
| Dyer VI. Shepperd. J Deusendor-
] mer Andrew GOoderman. G.. Fisher,
/ III. J. HOrvath, Leo Berner.
! In the defense offered by the
! counsel for the defense an attempt
| was made TO show the court that
! AIR Breinig. who is proprietor and
4 manager of the dancing academy
| was not directing the operation Of
/ the dance on Sunday. II was shown
| that ne usually takes tickets at the
| entrance to the place when he is in
] charge and that when he is not in
charge his assistant manager. L /.
] Busch. has fun authority. issues all
/ orders and directs the operation Of
! the business entirely.
I Asst. Chief Of Police Cassidy was
| first 10 take the stand and testified
! as TO the arrest Of Mr.. Breinig and
\ to the conversation that took place
between them at the time. lie also
/ testified TO having warned the pro-
! prietor Of the academy twice before
/ to close when he made special trips
J to the Toxic to do so and that he
3 h. made another trip TO repeat the
warning and, not finding Mr. Brein-
\ H. left word with the janitor to tell
\ the proprietor that he was wanted
/ at police headquarters
Denies Being Warned.
When ne took the stand, Breinig
/ denied that he had been warned by
! Asst Chief Cassidy on two occasions
\ and that he Immediately went 70
police headquarters when he re-
| ceiVed Cassidy's MESA ge, where he
was in conference with Chief of PO-
! lice Kline and Mayor Carson The
| conversation of this meeting was re-
I lated by T. L. Busch. assistant man
/ ger of Toxic when he took the
/ stand. He stated that they were re-
I quested 10 close because Of the pres
| emit crime wave and that though no
/ bad" reports had ever come to no
\ tice concerning Toxic. IL was
! thought better to close on Sunday.
! When asked II the moving picture
/ houses and other places Of business
/ and amusement were going TO be
I barred from operating on Sunday
/ they Were told that the order did
I not extend To the shows, Busch said.
/ officers Stull and Luther were
/ called TO the stand and testified to
| having gone TO Toxic earlier in the
( evening on Sunday paid admission
( and bought dance tickets. a third
/ party with them dancing and using
! the tickets purchased for that pur-
] pose. The officers waited until Asst
]
/ TO make the arrest
Gets Proceeds, Says JclllsOn.
/ Deputy Pros HambOrsky and
/ Pros Jellison attempted to show
i where the defendant had actually
/ been in charge Of the operation Of
| The dance on Sunday and that
/ though he did not actually take
/ tickets at the time. his assistants
were under his orders and the
money taken in went 70 the benefit
Of the defendent.
/ Following the testimony of the
witnesses Atty. Bingham moved for
verdict stating that no evidence
l had been given 10 show that the de-
PENDENT was actually engaged in the
I work Of managing the business at
the time or on the day OF the arrest.
I Judge Gilmer Overruled the motion
/ on the grounds that in the case Of
| n merchant having his store open
on Sunday and that the proof Of
OF goods being sold was sufficient
/ evidence OF his having violated the
law. The witnesses were again
brought on the stand and question
ed.