The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1921-05-12
MAY SEEK WRIT
TOFORCE HEARING
Attorneys for Accused Ii
quOr Men Threaten Man
damus Proceedings.
CASES ARE TO GO ON
Judge Tully Refuses to Dismiss
Cases and Orders Hearing
to Continue Thursday.

to Continue Thursday.
Threats of writ of mandamus to
force District Attorney Peter Fisher,
Jr., to proceed with preliminary hear
ings of saloon men arrested on charges
of selling whiskey, were featured to-
day in one of the most remarkable
court conditions arising out of the
prosecutions of alleged illicit dealers
in liquor and grand jury investigation.
Attorney Peter Fisher this morning
was denied by Judge Tully the right
to dismiss the cases brought against
John Bruins, William Bienemann and
Henry Steube when the cases of these
men came up in the municipal court
and vt was indicated that the decision
in these cases would be the holding of
the court under all other similar cases
now awaiting hearing. Judge Tully
held that under the law he could not
dismiss the actions without prelimin-
airy hearing and he directed the dis
trict attorney to be ready to proceed
with the hearings tomorrow.
Threat of Mandamus.
eff the district attorney does not
appear in court to present his evidence
at that time" declared one of the at
torneys for the saloon men, 1--WE shall
ourselves ask for an adjournment and
shall demand that a writ of mandamus
be issued to force the district attorney
to do his duty as an official of the
county. We shall also demand that
the judge proceed at once with these
hearings even if he is forced to sub
poena the witnesses himself and con-
duct the investigation with the attor-
neys for the state taking no part in
them. The complaints on which these
warrants were issued declare that the
court has information for the issu-
ance of the warrants and if he has this
information he is in position to sum-
mon witnesses and proceed"
Would Sidestep Grand Jury.
1t was admitted that ii was the aim
of the men who have been charged
in the warrants to sidestep indictments
by the grand jury if such thing is
possible. Attorney Fisher in his de-
mand for the dismissal of the cases this
morning declared that special prose-
cutor had been named by the court and
that he was expected to handle all
prosecutions of these cases. at will
be impossible for this special prosecu-
tor to have his evidence ready to pro-
duce to the court in less than ten
days." Mr.. Fisher declared. The saloon
men said that they feared that the
adjournment was sought in order to
have the evidence which would be pre-
scented in these cases presented to the
grand jury and that if a ten day ad-
journment was granted that the grand
jury would have indicted on this infor-
nation previous to the hearing in the
municipal court. Mr.. Fisher did not
confirm or deny that this was the plan
of the state in handling the cases.
See Hope of Immunity.
1t as also admitted that the liquor
men and their attorneys saw some hope
of immunity from grand jury action
on the particular evidence presented to
the lower court in these cases.
eff these men are bound over by the
trial in the municipal court and their
attorneys will know something of the
evidence to be presented against them
at the trial." said one Of the attorneys
for the defendants. eff they are indict-
ed by the grand jury we will know
nothing of what we may have to
meet in the way of evidence until
we are called into court some bright
day next fall"
The attorneys were a unit in saying
that if the men were not bound over
by Judge Tully that there would be
nothing to hinder their being held by
the grand jury.
The interest taken in the cases by
the saloon men was evidenced by a
battery of six attorneys appearing for
them. The principal arguments in the
case were made Attorneys Baker,
Drury, Mittlestaed and Barnett
Wants Constitutional Right.
Attorney Drury in summing up the
argument to the court, said:
"The attorneys in defense of the al
legged liquor dealers insisted that they
had the right of preliminary hearing
just as quickly as possible and that
they were opposed to any lengthy
postponement of the preliminary hear
ing. If one or two days will do the
district attorney any good in whipping
the prosecution into shape. the attor-
neys for the defense, haven't any OBJ
lection, but we are strenuously oppos-
ed to any adjournment of ten days.
The constitution of the United States