Evening journal., 1922-11-29
/ way that the lawyer put It.

trayed his own country. The State
he pointed out to the jury had no
attempted 70 establish a good repu
tation for their star witness"
Mr.. Harman occupied only three.
for his argument. and then Deput!
Attorney General Finger closed the
States argument.
In opening. Mr.. Finger told the
court that Mr.. Harman tried tc
lead them astray" from the real Is
sue by abuse of. Hook. devoting prac-
tically all his argument to denuncia-
ton Of the defendant who turned
States evidence.
but 1 will mot indulge in such
venom against the Frantzes." the
deputy attorney-general said.
Mr.. Finger went over the testi.
mony of the various witnesses with
the jury and maintained taat the
state had proven that the defend
ants had entered into a consDira, ~
10 obtain $500 graft in the award
ing Of the incinerator contract.
Argument to the jury was com
pleted at 1.2O' o'clock th:s afternoon.
Court then recessed un.n 2.3O
o'clock when the charge will BIZ de-
livered to,the jury.
DR.. Frantz and Howard Frantz,
after the Court had declined Mr..
HarmaD's Emotion 10 have the jury
instructed TO bring in a verdict OF
not guilty when the State closed its
case, took, the witness stand in their
defense yesterday afternoon. Both
denied conspiriDg with Hook 70
graft" $500 in the incinerator
transaction. stating that there had
never been any talk between them
OF bribery.
Howard Frantz In HIS testimony,
said that he never received a letter
from Hook in which Hook repudi-
ated the agreement. He claimed
that the agreement was a business
arrangement between the two and
that there was no effort on his part
to Obtain graft" on the purchase
OF the incinerator.
The proceedings yesterday after
noon were: Hook finished his tssti-
mony as a States witness against
the two Frantzs; Judge Daniel o.
Hastings concerning the agreement
was called as States witness, bui
was withdrawn when he failed to
give the testimony sought; Mr.. Har-
man, when the State rested It's case.
moved for binding instructions. but
the Court after ten MINUTES confer
ence, refused the motion; members
OF Council and of the Board Of
Health said that neither DR.. nor
Howard FrantE approached them or
sent agents TO them with offers Of
money to approve the Davis inciD-
orator; DR.. Frantz and Howard
Frantz denied charges Of con-
spiracy.
When Court opened about 2.s0
o'clock. Mr.. Harman resumed his
cross examination OF Hook who had
occupied the witness stand the whole
OF the morning session and for an
hour the day previous. Mr.. Har-
man finished the examination in
about twenty minutes.
Hook testified that he never gave
Howard Frantz any money in com
phance with the agreement. He de-
MED, too, that he had ever asked a
Mrs. Stewart Il she would get him
any proper influence" He also de-
MED that he had ever asked Mrs
Stewart 10 marry hm and in aDsweb
TO Mr.. Harman's question, said that
he is not married.
Who Is Mrs. Stewart" Mr.. Har-
man asked him.
"Howards sweetheart, TO the best
of my knowledge" was the defend
ant witness answer.
Judge Hastings was the next wit
ness called by the State. When ne
seated himself on the witness stand,
Mr.. Finger produced the agreement
signed by Hook and asked Judge
II the Frantzes did not
come 20 him with II.
Il decline to answer" was the re-
ply OF the witness.
"On what grounds?" Mr.. Finger
1u estioned him. After waiting sew
eral minutes. Judge Hastings quietly
said. You know perfectly Wen
professional privilegs?" Mr.. Fin
ger suggested.
yes" was the response.
Mr.. Finger then asked Judge Hast
.nRs II the Frantzes had not come
10 him and sought his advice ana
assistance with the view OF collect
ng on the agreement.
Again Judge Hastings did not re
ply and Mr.. Harman objected to the
Mr. Finger, addressing
he court. said that he desired to
,how the circumstances under which
The paper was brought TO Juoge
Hastings. and that then he would
,e ready to argue that Judge Hast
ngs' lain OF professional privilege
lid not prevail.
Judge Hastings stated that ne
<new nothing excepting what he had
been told by DR.. and Howard Frantz
n confidence, and he added that he
,elt that the question was entirely
2ut of order and unnecessary
Mr.. Finger insisted that Judge
answer would bring before
the court for argument whether or
not the witness had grounds to claim
professional privilege under the cir
tlat II his answer was
n the affirmative the question could
"a argued. but II the answer were
IN the negative, but that would end
he mater.
Then Judge Hastings apprised the
,ourt and Jury that he knew abso- /
utely nothing about the case other
han what the Frantz' had told him /
and that that was in confidence, out
.ide OF what he had told Mr.. Grant
and. who testified Monday after
sfr ,,-a ~ n keen their con-