Arizona republican., 1921-05-13
MONEY MACH|NE"
 FIGURES IN CASE
 ARGUED O|V APPEAL

The case of Agiteknos Helene was argued in supreme court yesterday on his appeal from a judgment of the superior court of this county more than a year ago. in which he was held to be guilty of conducting a confidence game with success up to a certain point.
 It will be recalled that nearly two years ago a Greek complained to the authorities that scheme into which he had been inveigled by Agi- teknos for engaging in competition with the United States government had gone awry and with it about s2, 900 of his own hard-earned money.
 The defendant and appellant had represented to the complainant that he was the possessor and inventor of a machine for turning out green backs. treasury notes. silver and gold certificates the equal in artistic merit to those issued by the govern ment.
 The device was a small affair with a lot of mysterious rollers and was said to have concealed in its .inards' certain dies or plates for printing the money. The appellant demon 1 strated the operation of the device to the satisfaction of the complain 1 ant. The operation appeared to be a very simple one, though the ma chinery was quite complex Pieces of blank paper cut into the dimen- sions of the treasury note or other | bill desired were inserted into the | machine and shortly there emerged ! a new, handsomely printed evidence | of the governments indebtedness.
 But it appeared that some new | plates or dies were needed and they were very expensive. It was to se- | T1.-w. ~.z.l | S2,000 of the complainant's money. 1 The complainant saw no reason why l he should not have it. With that kind of a machine they could grind | out $2,000 in the course of an even | ing. The money was turned over to the appellant. and soon thereafter something occurred to excite the sus- | picion of the complainant. who went to the authorities about it.
 A hurried raid was made upon the room of the appellant, a suitcase was seized. and it was found to con- 1 tain the money manufacturing de- vice. It was upon that evidence together with the story of the com | plainant. that the appellant was con- | victed. The word of the complainant alone would not have been sufficient It would have been his word against that of the appellant. -horse and liAlS ana Nntn Au4iSs break that way the defendant is al | ways the beneficiary.
 It was the contention of the ap- pellant, as outlined by his attorney MT Struckmeyer. yesterday that th' state was not entitled to that evi- dence. It had been seized in contra vention of the fourth amendment |, the federal constitution and in vio lation of a provision of the stat constitution. The seizure had beel effected without warrant The mat . ter was then taken under advise
 ment.
 Superior Judge Lyman sat with tn
 supreme court in tho absence Q . Justice McAlIister.
 Earlier in the day the court hande, 1 down an opinion in the case of I. H l Maxey. appellant. against the Som
 erton bank appellee, from Yum
 county. affirming the judgment o
 the lower court.
 In the case of Maxey and his wife
 appellants. against the Somerto
 bank, the judgment of the lower cour was reversed. with the directions {
 enter judgment for the appellant a
 prayed for in the complaint. includ ing 3 reasonable attorneys fee to
 fixed by the lower court.
 The arguments in the case of Bios
 som Sage. appellant, against Joh
 Stephens appellee, from Yavapa
 county, were concluded.