Evening journal., 1921-04-22
CLERKS PLEAD
FOR new TRIALS
Counsel For Recorders Of
hcials Argue Verdict Was
Against Evidence
DECISION ON
MOTION LATER

Argument on the motion FOR
new trial in the case Of William C.
Cole, former deputy recorder Of
deeds Harry Fennimore and Walter
Babcock, former clerks In the re-
corder's office. was heard by Chief
Justice Pennewill and Judges Boyce
and Conrad in Court Of General Ses-
sions this morning.
After the hearing Of the argument
Of counsel. which was concluded
about 1890 o'clock this afternoon.
the court recessed until 2 o'clock
without giving decision.
Cole. Fennimore and Babcock
we're convicted by jury. with a
recommendation for mercy. OF a
charge OF conspiracy 10 defraud last
week. Counsel for the defendants
Immediately asked for an arrest Of
judgment and moved for a new trial.
The three defendants were In the
court room during the argument this
morning. The argument started al
IL o'clock. The court room was well
crowded
Philip L. Garrett represented vii
liam G. Cole and j. Frank Ball rep
resented Babcock and Fennimore.
Deputy Attorney General Clarance A.
Southerland argued on behalf Of the
state.
Opening the argument. Mr.. Ball
contended that the verdict was
against the law and the evidence.
He also referred TO the fact that the
court, on the second day Of the trial.
cautioning the jury not 10 be in
fiuenced by newspaper article and
headline that appeared in a local
morning paper. in which comment
was made on the evidence in the
case as being damaging" to Cole
and the other defendants.
Babcock and Fennimore were act
ing in the line OF their duty as clerks
In the recorders Office in all that
they did, Mr. Ball contended.
MT Garrett followed Mr.. Ball. He
referred TO a ruling handed down i'm
the State courts some years ago that
circumstantial evidence must be con-
elusive OF guilt and maintained that
only circumstantial evidence had
been offered in the Cole-Fennimore-
Babcock case. The evidence against
the defendants was confined to five
points, he declared. naming them as.
Evidence as 10 the erection OF a rail-
ing in the office. evidence as TO con-
| ferences, evidence as TO the rear
rangement Of furniture in the oflce
evidence as 10 the checking OF the fee
hook with delivery slips. and. only In
D the mF q
dence OF deposit slips. That was IN,
only evidence relied upon by IN,
State 10 secure conviction. ne as.
serted.
By applying the rule concerning
I circumstantial evidence. an hvpo-
| thesis Of innocence as well as of
guilt will be found. the attorney con-
/ tinued
The newspaper article and head
I line appearing In a morning paper
was also commented on at some
I length by Mr.. Garrett. He called
the attention OF the court to the fact
that the Brewer case, at the Janu-
airy term OF court, was declared a
mistrial because a juror had been
approached by a man and spoken
D 10 NNANFA AANN the case Inc com
ment OF the newspaper upon the evil
dence as being damaging TO Cole and
other defendants was Of the same
nature. he held.
Even though the court did tell the
jury not to be Influenced by the ar
ticle and headline. the damage had
been done" asserted Mr. Garrett
when they read the paper"
Deputy Attorney General Souther-
land. in opening his argument re-
marked that the argument OF Mr.
Ball and Mr.. Garrett was appropriate
for an argument 10 jury. The
counsel for the defendants. Mr
Switzerland argued. utterly overlook
ed the significance Of the documen
tary evidence produced by the State
and said that counsel tried to demol-
ish the evidence piece by piece in
! their argument as they did during
: the trial.