The Cordova daily times., 1921-05-03
SUPREME COURT REVERSES CASES NEWBERRY Fl AL
Continued from Page One)

1 900 fine.
 Paul H. King of Detroit, manager of the NeWberry campaign, two years in Leavenworth and $10,0OO fine. l Charles A. Floyd of Detroit, assist ant manager of the Newberry cam paign two years in Leavenworth and $5,0o0 fine.
 William J. Nickel of Oshkosh, Wis, former deputy state food and drug in spector in Michigan, two years in Leavenworth
 Allan A. Templeton, ex-president of the Detroit board of commerce and general chairman of the Newberry committee, one year and six months in Leavenworth.
 Roger M. Andrews, editor of the Menominee Herald-Leader, one year and six months in Leavenworth.
 Milton Oakman, Detroit, former sheriff, one year and six months in Leavenworth.
 Richard H. Fletcher, Bay City, state labor commissioner one year and three months in Leavenworth.
 James F. McGreggor, Detroit, one year and three months in Leaven- worth
 Fred Henry, Flint, deputy state fac tory inspector, one year and three months in Leavenworth. | Hannibal A. Hopkins of St. Clair, Mich, clerk in the U. s. senate, Washington, one year and one day in | LeavenWorth.
 F. V. Chilson, of Ann Arbor, a Re publican national committee employe, one year and one day in Leavenworth John S. Newberry, Detroit, brother of the senator, $10O00 fine. l Harry o. Turner, Detroit, former chief deputy marshal, $2,000 fine. B. Frank Emery, Detroit, former clerk in the Wayne county treasurers office, $2,OoO fine.
 George s. Ladd, Sturbridge, Mass, former master of the Massachusetts state grange, $1,000 fine. All the convicted men have been at liberty on bonds since their indict- ment.
 The specific charge against Sen ator NeWberry was that between Dec. l., 1917 and Nov. 5, 1918 he "unlaw- fully and feloniously did conspire, combine, confederate and agree with divers persons" to violate the act of June 25, 1910, by contributing sums aggregating $70O,000 toward the ex- penses of his nomination and cleo tion. It was not necessary, the gov ernment asserted, that Newberry should actually give this amount or that he should have had personal supervision of it's expenditure, but it was sufficient if he had guilty knowl- edge that contributions to an illegal aggregate were being accepted for the purpose in view
 Included in the scores of expendi- lures set forth In the indictment were "appropriating and converting to the use of the defendants themselves, large sums of money under the guise Iof payment of their expenses and compensation for their services; bribery election officers; unlawful as- sistance of election officers; bribery of voters; expenses and compensa- tion of Democratic obstructionist can didates; dinners, banquets and other entertainments"
 No less than 153 alleged errors were assigned" by the defendants in their application for appeal to the highest court Beginning with the re- fusal of the district court to sustain a demurrer to the indictment, these errors follow the course of the trial throughout, the last in order being criticism of the court for refusing the application for new trial.
 The brief submitted to the supreme court by Charles E. Huges, Martin w. Littleton, George E. Nichols and James O. Murfin, counsel for New berry and the sixteen co-defendants, made two distinct attacks on the pro- ceedings at Grand Rapids. The con- viction should be reversed, it was contended, because the statute in- voked was not supported by any | constitutional provision, and because | if it should be held constitutional, the statute did not cover the alleged overt acts of the defendants.
 The corrupt practices act, the de- fense averred, was drawn to limit the amount a candidate might spend to obtain public office, but not to limit the amount his friends might contri- bute should they consider the neces- sity for his election justified extra I