The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1924-10-02

case. Listening were Sheriff Pabst,
Assistant Chief John Cyzak Of the
police department, District Attorney
Barnett, and News reporter. With
misty eyes she proceeded to tell what
struggle she had been having to
keep her four children in shelter and
clothing. 1.-THE second week in August
Mr.. Matzur left me and said he was
going to Waukegan and would never
come back again." she said. HE has
paid me nothing to live on, while
have heard that he made as much as
$3.50 in thirty days on some kind of
mysterious job. have taken job to
cook for the night nurses at Kenosha
hospital to earn little money. Mr..
Matzur tried to say I was insane and
wanted to get me sent to an insane
asylum. They sent a policewoman
here and she told me there was moth
ing wrong with me. / am just q plain
Woodworking woman and I don't want
things said about me that are not true"
Symmonds States Stand.
Former District Attorney Symmonds,
when told this morning that Mrs. Mat
EUR had repudiated her story told by
her at the time of the trial of the
case, gave out a statement setting
forth his attitude in the case.
81 have been advised" said Mr.. Sym
monds, "that Mrs, Matzur has made
statements concerning the moonshine
raid of her home some time in De-
cember, 1922, and the facts surround
ing the same. I have been informed
that she has stated that 1 advised her
to plead guilty to the charge as was
made against her at that time and this
is true. 1 did not advise her to plead
guilty to shield any one. However,
that advise was not given her until
had, what I was given to understand
by her own confession, was the truth
of the matter.
II remember that she had previously
repudiated to me as being false. /
asked her to tell me the truth no mat
ter whom it involved and was ready
to prosecute any one who was guilty
Of the offense no matter who the party
was She finally told me the same
story as she did in the case of State
vs.. Protsko and on her story I caused
the arrest of the defendant in that
case. In this case she was provided
with an interpreter and inasmuch as it
was the same given me previously,
was convinced of the truth of it.
Case Laid Before Court.
81 am not the judge to determine
in a hearing who is guilty, but l. pro-
duced on the preliminary hearing all
the evidence had and let it be to
the court to determine the guilt or in
nocense Of the man charged. The tes-
timony is matter of record and tells
the story better than l can. From
the testimony taken in this case, to
my mind it exonerated Mr.. Matzur be-
yond any doubt if true and l had every
reason to believe this woman when
she swore to tell the truth.
Her story to me, as / said before,
was the same as given in court, only
there was more that the court would
not permit to be given under the rules
OF evidence. If it shall now appear
that this woman lied to me, I don't
see, where I am to blame. It is the
duty of the district attorney to pro-
tect the innocent as well as the guilty
and upon the facts presented to me I
felt / had a right, and the law re-
L
using the judicial discretion which
the law gave me-"
Let District Attorney Act.
eff now evidence has been secured,
land l have not been advised of this,
which shows that any one else was
guilty, it is up to the present district
attorney to take the matter up. If it
now appears that perjury has been
committed there is reason for inves-
tigation on the part of the officials
Every one knows that I would not at
any time shield any one, much less
Mr.. Matzur, of any offense if the facts
showed his guilt. l did my duty as 1
saw it, and went thoroughly into the
facts in that hearing. The record is
made and that is all l care to say.
However, if L can in any way assist
in sincere investigation I will gladly
DO what l can. But feel that justice
has been DONE This woman had
young children needing her care and
she, to my mind was merely the tool
in the hands of parties not as yet been
brought to justice, who had a grudge
against Mr.. MatZur as the whole evil
dence on the hearing proven conclusive
to me at least"
Cites Mrs. Matzur's Testimony.
Mr.. Symmonds cited testimony taken
from the records Of the, case of the
State VS.. Walter Prostke, this being
testimony of Mrs. Matzur on the wit
ness stand regarding the still found
in the home, after she had testified
that her husband came home and was
angry because the "house was stink