Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-02-28

$3.50 ons by Mr.. Evans. Holmes insisted
49, defense had the right to present an
Hl nocent construction upon transac-
~ PAS which the State has insisted are
: "crinSnal.'
Hol1hes declared in December, 1920,
Karl NunkIe and Francis entered into
arrangements to traffic in whisky and
booze terminals were established at
Louisville, indianapolis and Dayton. He
stated the defense would show by Kunkle
Francis did not break into a house at
Louisville and steal large quantities Of
liquor, which Francis testified he brought
to indianapolis, leaving some at Hart
mans house. Holmes said 1t will be
shown Francis and Kunkle took the
whisky to Dayton and sold 1t and that
Hartman at no time had any knowledge
of that transaction.
SAYS KUNKLE GIVES
DIFFERENT VERSION.
Holmes indicated the testimony OF
Kunkle will be placed before the jury
and declared Kunkle tells an entirely diff
ferent story from that related by Fran
els.
Holmes admitted Hartman went to
Dayton and appeared in court with other
counsel for Moore, the name by which
Hartman then knew Francis.
The defense previously had intimated
its line Of procedure in questions and
arguments made in defense Of motions
during the introduction of evidence of the
State. The defense always has operated
On the theory that Hartman never knew
that he and Mrs. Hartman were riding in
stolen automobiles until Hartman over
heard a conversation between Francis
and a man at Lake Manitou. The de-
tense insists that the second that Hart
6iGPnVarad ma ri vi
a stolen car, he and Mrs Hartman re-
turned to Indianapolis by train instead
of riding back with Francis.
Francis on the witness stand main
tanned that Hartman always knew the
cars were stolen and that the reason he
returned by train to indianapolis was
due to a quarrel between Francis and
Hartman following the making Of an
alleged Insulting" remark by Hartman
to Mrs. Francis. This is referred to by
both Francis and his wife as the towel
episode.
The defense insists that Hartman. on
visiting Dayton, Ohio, and Louisville.
KY, at times Francis was under arrest,
was in the capacity of lawyer. Francis
maintained that he didn't plead with
Hartman to come to his aid, but de
manded" that he come
1t is the contention of the defense that
the bill of sale which Francis and his
wife signed after Francis furniture was
removed to the Hartman home was in
good faith and that Hartman gave Fran
els 800 for the household goods.
1t is the theory of the defense that
Hartman at no time had any knowledge
that any seal skin coats were stolen
property and that none of the coats came
into Hartmans possession unless by
signed orders or through the efforts of
Mrs. Francis to sell 1t.
The defense, on DISCRIMINATION
sought to establish point through Her
bert R. Fletcher, former inspector of de-
tectives here, that Hartman told Fletcher
that he would aid in having all furniture
and coats returned to the police. Fletcher
admitted that Hartman first told him
that he (Hartmap) had bought furniture
which had been in Francis fiat.
1t has been maintained during the en-
tire trial both by Mr.. Holmes and Eph
Inman, associate counsel, that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that when Hartman received any goods
or coats from Francis that Hartman at
the time knew them to be stolen prop
erty.
DEFENSE SUMMONS
MANY WITNESSES.
The defense, it is said, has summoned
more than seventy witnesses in behalf
OF hartman. Many OF these are thought
to be character witnesses. 1t is thought
that Hartman will take the stand in his
own defense in an attempt to refute
testimony given by Francis.
Karl Kunkle, confessed automobile
thief, who was sentenced from three to
five years ON a plea of guilty In the
Criminal Court has arrived from the
Michigan City Prison following the
issuing Of a summons calling him into
court as a witness for the defense.
Both Francis and his wife branded
. Kunkle as a criminal companion" of
Francis. Francis testified that he met