Evening journal., 1922-11-29

his application that the jury be In
istructed to bring in a verdict of not
4 guilty. maintaining that the State
had not proved a prims facte case
! by evidence, other than that OF the
co-conspirator Hook.
] Mr.. Harman, referring 10 the evil
4 dence OF the various States Wit
nesses, said that the testimony OF
Mayor Harvey. City Solicitor Sat
iterthwaite and Councilman Nc
Manus should so out OF the case al
! together as the alleged admissions
Of Hook, 20 which they testified
were made six months after the ter
mination OF the alleged conspiracy,
pointing out that the incinerator
was approved in January and ac-
cepted in February. and that Hook
! did not make the statements at
tributed TO him until August. He
said that he would have objected 20
the testimony OF the three officials
II Hook had changed his plea az the
opening of the trial.
As 90 Hook. co-conspirator. Mr..
! Harman said that his testimony
should go In only providing the State
had made out prima facle case by
some other evidence than his.
The attorney said that the testi-
mony of Mr.. Granland, City Engi-
neer Mailer. DR.. Handy and Council
man johnson was the only evidence
aliunde and that their testim ony
did not contain anything TO show
conspiracy. There was nothing In
the evidence TO show an unlawful
com bination or conspiracy, the de-
fendant's attorney contended, and
cited law authorities.
In reply TO Mr.. Harman's argu-
ment. Mr.. Finger asserted that the
attorneys contentious were rather
novel; that conspiracy can be prov
en- by either direct or circumstan-
tial testimony, and that in the case
before the,court the charge had been
proven by both classes Of testimony.
Hooks testimony, he maintained d.
was both direct and corToboratlve.
The overt act was shown IN the tea
tlmony OF Engineer Maier. he said
The Judges conferred in Cham
bers and at the end OF ten minutes
returned 20 the court room with
their decision. refusing Mr.. Har-
mans motion.
Mr.. Hsrmsn. opening the defense,
made his eddress as 20 the defense's
contention TO the jury. He declar-
ed that he would prove that neither
DR.. Frantz nor his son. Howard
was guilty OF what was charged in
the Indictment; that neither offer
ed any money themselves or by rep
.resentstives 10 any member OF the
City Council or Board OF Health.
The reason hook went to How
ard Frantz was because he was crazy
to get a contract IN the city OF Will
mington for the erection Of a mod
ern. up-to-date incinerator, not so
much for the profit IN II as II was
10 build a plant that should be a
standing monument to other rnuni-
cipalities OF the efficiency OF the Da-
Wis plant the attorney told the
jury.
Hook didn't live here. Mr.. Har-
man set forth. and wanted someone
qualified to explain its workings and
to devote time 20 the work OF get
ting other contracts and for that
reason was willing to pay $500 for
such a person. He eaid that he
would show that Hook expected 70
make millions out Of Il and that ne
wanted a man here IN whom he
could place confidence.
As long as Howard Frantz ala not
neglect his duties as secretary OF the
Health Board he had right TO take
such employment as Hook is said 20
have offered him. the defendants
attorney declared.
Mr.. Harman then called members
OF Council and the Board OF Health
who testified that they had never
been approached by either of the
defendants or their representatives
with offers OF bribes to approve the
Davis inoinerator.
Those who testified 70 this effect
were DR.. Harvey Murry DIR. Handy.
Albert E. Hayman and Leon II.
Ryan, of the Health Board; Howard
NJ. Ward. president OF Council, and
Counollmen Faulkner. McNabb Tay-
lor. Abrahams, Evans. McManns
and Mulvena. Councilman Murry
was reported as Ill but Mr.. Finger
stated that he would admit that he
would give similar testimony.
Councilmen Henry and Hopkins
failed to- appear and capiases were
issued for them.
When City Engineer Maier, an ex-
officio member of the Health Board. |
was called. Mr.. Harman asked him
only as to whether Howard Frantz
had made an offer Of money TO him /
to approve the incinerator. Mr.. |
Maier sad that he had not.
In ss-exGmination, Mr.. Finger
asked Mr.. Maier, the only one OF |
Mr.. Harman's witnesses that he had
whether or not DR..
Frantz had offered him money to |
approve the inclnerator. The Court |
however. sustained Mr.. Harman's
objection that the question was not /
in cross-examination.
DR.. Frantz next took the witness ]
stand. He stated that he has lived !
in wilmington for forty-two years. |
has practiced medicine here for /
forty years. served seventeen years /
on the State Board of Health. fifteen 1
years of which were in the capacity /
of secretary and also served a
number of years on the City Board
Of Health. serving during part OF his
term as president.
DR.. Frantz said that. because OF
the health conditions OF this city, he
made a special study of garbage
burning plants and had found the
Davis' plant to be a very satlefac-
tory one.