Evening journal., 1922-07-08
court CLASH
IN rum CASE
Counsel Says Vavala Was
Arrested Without Neces-
sary Warrant
DOUBT EVIDENCE
OF DRY AGENTS

Following frequent clashes over
points OF law. the case Of Salvatore
vavaia, charged with violating the
Volstead act, was postponed by
United States Commissioners Cam
esterday afternoon. for further hear
ing on July IL 10 allow time for con-
sideration OF the issues raised.
Former judge, J. Frank Ball. coun-
sci for the defense. made a hard hght
for his client, declaring he would
discredit the testimony OF Federal
agents and objecting 10 the testimony
OF State Bacterioligist Herbert J.
Watson.
The main point OF argument was
based on the fact that the warrant
for Vavala's arrest was not sworn
out until several hours after the ar
rest. In stressing this point Mr.. Ball
clashed with L. S. District At
torney. James II. Hughes and de-
clared that the undue haste OF the
dry sleuths was one Of the things
which made the prohibition laws 50
obnoxious.
The arrest OF Salvatore was made
last month, near New Castle, at
which time the man is alleged
to have had possession OF IL
quor which he was transporting and
later selling. He was arrested at
12.45 a. m, but according to the
admission Of Federal Agent Leroy,
the warrant was not sworn out until
some time later in the morning.
After the hearing Of testimony Of
fered by Federal agents Leroy and
Howard, who made the arrest.
DR.. Watson was called by Mr.
Hughes to testify. As the commits
sioner finished swearing the state
chemist, Mr.. Ball warned him
not to answer any question until
he had time TO object. This was un-
usual. as the testimony regarding
analysis Of liquor rarely meets with |
objection.
what is your position, Mr.. Wat |
son2" asked the District Attorney.
Or. Watson hesitated and look |
ed at Mr. Ball. who laughed and told /
him to go ahead and answer.
you analyzed the sample Of IL
quor taken from Salvatore did you
not?" asked the District Attorney.
The chemist started 10 answer
when Mr.. Ball interrupted and said,
Il object on two grounds First,
his liquor has not been properly |
Identified as the liquor my client is
accused Of selling. and cannot,
therefore,, be used as evidence !
against him. Second, the arrest was
lot made with a warrant" I
The objection was upheld by the
whereupon Mr..
Hughes Immediately recalled the
federal agents, who established the
IDENTIFY of the liquor to the satisfac-
ion OF the commissioner. The sec
md objection, however, puzzled thel
commissioner somewhat.
Mr.. Hughes attempted TO explain
he reason for this. pointing out
hat Il Is almost impossible to make
N arrest for transporting without a
and asserted that Section
Is. Of the Volstead act. makes II
awful, whereupon Mr.. Ball declar-
d it was unconstitutional.
The District Attorney asked the
pposing counsel what court declar-
d it unconstitutional. at which Mr..
BALL admitted he could not state Off
land, but continued that the gov
rnment was too hasty In making ,
rrests anyhow.
THAT is what makes the prohibi-
ion laws so obnoxious" he said.
YES" agreed Mr. Hughes, "it
nay he obnoxious TO the counsel for
he defense If his client is found +
uilty."
After further quibbling, the COM 1