Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-03-01
LAWYERS TILT
ONLY HARTMAN
CASE FEATURE
Continued From Page One.)

| were Hartman supporters in the pri-
mary campaign, testified during the pri-
| mary campaign Hartman used a Ford
car and not a Buick, as had been testt-
| fed to by Francis. They also contra
dicted the statement of Francis he had
driven Hartman the night of the Shank
parade to Fountain Square a few days
before the primary election. They also
testified Francis or Karl KunkIe, con-
eessed automobile thief, had no part in
the management of the Hartman cam
pa en-.
DEFENSE RELIES
ON TESTIMONY.
The defense placed considerable weight
on the testimony Of Charles Saylor,
electrician at the power house at the
amusement park at Lake Manitou. de
testified July and 5, 1921, when Hart
man and Francis and their wives were
at Lake Manitou, Hartman did not use
the stolen Buick car driven by Francis
but borrowed one belonging to Howard
Shank, manager of the park. On July
| 5, Saylor said. Hartman told him he
! believed Francis was crooked and had
! stolen the car.
other witness introduced by the de-
! Tense were Vern L. Murray, Walter Boy
err, Harry B. Millspaugh, r. 7. Clay and
Harry Howard.
| Karl Kunkle resumed the witness
stand at the opening of the morning SEES
sion and completed the testimony he be-
| gan yesterday afternoon.
| On cross-examination Prosecutor Evans
| succeeded in confusing the witness on a
number Of minor points, but, In tho main,
he adhered substantially to the story
| told on direct examination.
| Kunkle was introduced by the defense
late yesterday as its admitted criminal
witness in an effort to refute the testi-
mony given by Frank Francis. known as
| the "confessing burglar whose dis
| closures resulted in Hartman's retire
ment. following court action. as a candi-
date at the last city election as well as
his Indictment in both the Criminal and
| Federal Courts.
| The evidence Of Kunkle in chief was a
| fiat contradiction Of the evidence given
| by Frank Francis, Mrs. Lura Francis,
Detective william Rugenstein and others
who testified against Hartman for the
State
The high lights of Kunkle's evidence
were as follows:
That he and Francis entered an agree
ment in December, 1920, to haul whisky
from Louisville to indianapolis and from
indianapolis to Dayton. Ohio.
whisky from Francis, fatty contradictinG
the testimony Of Francis one load OF
whisky brought to indianapolis from
Louisville was stolen property. Kunkle
asserted be paid for part OF the whisky
and the liquor was taken by him and
Francis TO Dayton, Immediately following
the appearance Of Detective Rugensteir
at Francis fiat on North Delaware street
He declared the whisky was sold in
Dayton for $500 and none Of the whisky
was taken 10 Hartman's home. He in
sisted Hartman had no knowledge Of thl.
whisky transaction.
KUNKLE TELLS OF
WHISKY TERMINALS"
That he and Francis maintained gar
ages or whisky terminals" in Louis
Vile, indianapolis and Dayton.
That be at no time entered into al
! agreement with Detective Rugenstein L
lay g. trap for Francis 50 the detective
might arrest the latter. Detective Ru
genstein testified for the State thai
Kunkle, known to him as Barnes. ex
pressed surprise on hearing Moore
( (Francis) was a crook and arranged with
Rugeustein TO aid IN arresting Francis.
that Kunkle knew Francis In prison
in Ohio.
That Francis introduced Kunkle &c
/ Hartman as Carl Barnes and Hartman
never knew his name was Kunkle.
That Francis. at the time he left hi'
I first wife, took a fur coat and jewels
belonging to her and later gave them tc
his present wife. Lura Francis.
1 That Kunkle was with Francis whsr
he bought part OF the furniture which
later was taken from Francis apartment
to the Hartman homt-
! That Francis told him that he tFran
cls) had sold his household good K
Hartman because Francis wished to ge
out Of town.
That Francis IN Hartmans presence
stated he (Francis) had traded touring
car for the Buick with the Rex toy.
SAYS HE DROVE
HARTMAN FROM DAYTON.
That he drove Hartman and his wifi
from Dayton to Indianapolis, following
Hartman's visit to Dayton after Francis
was arrested on charges Of carrying con
cealed eapons Francis had testified
he returned with Mr.. and Mrs. Hartman
to indianapolis.
That he and Francis rode in q colored
parade prior to election and Hartman
was not in the car. He denied ha drove
a GER in any other political parade. This
is a direct contradiction Of the evidence
OF Francis.
That he never was present when Hart
man suggested any plan Of getting easy
money" from farmers.
That Kunkle never assisted Francis IN
burglarizing houses.
That Kunkle never had knowledge
Francis or Moore, as Kunkle knew him
was a burglar.
On determination Kunkle refused
to be shaken in his evidence in chief
which was flat contradiction of the
testimony given by Francis AID othel
witnesses for the State.
Kunkle was brought here from prison
and is under special guard in the Crimt
nal Court room.
The defense also introduced severa
witness es tending to show Hartman oil
primary day was not with Francis, a
Francis testified for the State.
It IS the contention Of the State 1
Francis under the name Of Frank Fran
els voted at the primary and gave hi
address as that of Hartman's home, /
was done without the knowledge or per
mission Of Hartman. The State has In
troduced the voting records OF the pre-
cinct in which Hartman lives, showing
Hartman's name is Just above that o
Francis.
| Indications are that the defense viii
| not conclude its side Of the case until
late Thursday or Friday. 1t has beer
-------------------------s
| ElT6 N9a