The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-06-02

one of Blitz's attorneys. on cross ex-
animation. that Mr.. Blitz gave you
$50 for this check-that you merely
.cashed it in his store?'
mo, sir" replied Charowhas.
The Greek also testified that Blitz
told him he would say that he merely
received the check for goods which
Charowhas had purchased from him.
Eva Lambert Testifies.
Eva Lambert. known as the Queen
of the Bottoms" was called to the
witness stand this afternoon and testi-
April, 1921. at about 1880 o'clock at
night, and that Blitz came to the sta
ton, furnished her bond, and told her
to come to his place the following ar
ternoOn.
She testified that she called at
Blitz's place the following afternoon.
paid for her bond, and that Blitz asked
her for 500 to square her case"
The witness stated that she wanted
some assurance that the case would
actually be squared"
Blitz. according to Eva, said that
''he ran the police station" and asked
her if she would be satisfied if Rad
NJ Lee, police judge. gave her his
assurance that the case would be set
tied. She stated to Blitz that she
would be under those conditions, and
Blitz asked her to call again on the
following day and he would have
Rad Lee there"
She called the witness stated. ac-l
cording to her agreement with Blitz.
but Lee was not present. Blitz told
her. she testified. that Lee had been
called to the court house on a case,
but had authorized Blitz to speak for
him.
Eva stated she never paid Blitz the
500 he asked for
Paid $3.50 for settlement.
Charles Adds. 1888 Kansas avenue.
M ST n
the stand this afternoon
Adds testified that he paid $3.50 to
Blitz to settle a liquor case for him,
and that the case never came up in
court after he paid Blitz.
A. E: Crane, AL Justice and Guy L.
Bradford were retained by Blitz to de-
fend him. Crane was out of the city
this morning, and Justice and Brad |
a assistant attorney general. assisted /
County Attorney Veale. The short !
hearing was marked by persistent at /
tention to legal technicaiities. The |
first technical discussion came when |
the defense moved to quash the war
rant on the ground that 1t did not |
charge a crime. The meaning OF the I
statute on which the case was founded /
was questioned. Both sides quoted !
and after a few NOM ents' /
consideration in the privacy of his /
chambers Judge Heinz overruled the !
motion.
The next clash concerned the
relevancy of the testimony of Mrs 4
Moore and Charowhas. Crane OBJ /
jected to it. intimating that the state /
was attempting to introduce the testi- (
mony merely as a securing of this /
mans character
mo Fishing Party"
Griffith then arose and assured the 1
court that this is no fishing party" !
and that the state intends to connect
the testimony of the other witnesses
with that of Burger for the purpose OF 4
the defendants intent in ap-
preaching the city bacteriologist re-
garding the return of erroneous re-
ports in liquor analysis.
We desire to show said Griffith.
that this man. alleged to be in con-
troll of the underworld of Topeka.
sought to get his clutches on this
young city officer for the purpose of i
furthering his own ends and that the
suggestion of returning reports of no
alcohol in liquor examinations was not
made for the purpose of merely de-
termining the honesty of the city bac-
After authorities had been quoted on
the subject, Judge Heinz overruIed the
objections of the defense. assuring
Blitz's attorneys that he would take
care OF them in the event the state
failed to connect Up the testimony.
BIitz Denies Revenue Rumor.
Bhtz today denied rumors published
thursday that an investiga ton by in
ternal revenue authorities had re-
Vealed that he had failed to report the
entire amount of money he had re-
ceived as compensation for going the
bonds of persons arrested by the po-
lice on liquor and other charges He
stated that there is nothing to the re-
port and that he has receipts to show
the money he received.