The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-01-24
DRY LEAGUE
A|DS'4FRAUD
IS ALLEGED
Brief Filed in Supreme Court
Says Lawyers Mis-
represented.
CHARGES ARE DENIED
deliberate and False State
mentS' Claimed.

Charges that Ethan A. Miles and
Jesse Martin, attorneys for the In.
diana Anti.Saloon League, are "per.
petrating fraud" in the Indiana Su.
preme Court in their "over-zealous
passion" to prosecute liquor law
vioiators were made today in brief
presented by Attorney Jacob Nor
gan in liquor case,
Morgan gave each of the Supreme
Court judges copy of the brief and
papers in the case and asked them
to investigate the misconduct" of
or the League attorneys.
Martin. informed of the charges.
denied them. There is nothing to
the fraud charge. A full record of
the case is before the court" he said.
The brief was presented with q
petition to reconsider the plea for the
transfer of the liquor case against
Isaac Levy and Norris I. Assael, now
IN Appellate Court, into Supreme
Court. The men were found guilty
of violating the liquor law at 1925 S.
capitol Ave. in 1924 in a county Su.
perior Court. The place was pad.
locked for year and Martin and
Miles were awarded $1OO attorney
fees.
Presents Petition
The petition was held in tbe
office Of the clerk of the Supreme
Court pending decision by the
judges whether or not they would
consider it. The court is not in ses.
sion until Tuesday.
Appeal to the Appellate Court was
lost, and on Dec. Morgan filed a
petition to transfer the case to the
supreme Court. On Dec. Is Anti.
Saloon League attorneys filed a pc.
/ luton asking dismissal of the trans.
Ter petition, asserting there was no
assignment of errors filed.
| This Morgan, in his brief. brands
as a deliberate and false statement"
! to mislead- the court. According to
Morgan, the assignment of errors
/ set out ten propositions which were
in conflict with Supreme Court ruI-
ings. Morgan also asserts that the
Supreme Court denied the transfer
petition the S, me day. before notice
was given that the dry attorneys had
filed against it.
The fraud perpetrated by counsel
for appellee Martin and Miles, was
perpetrated in the briefs filed by
them in the Supreme Court; that
court can surely deal out justice
where justice is due and mete out
such punishment as the conditions
fully warrant" the brief reads.
Court Dignity Considered
"The dignity OF the Supreme Court
should not be overlooked in this
singular proceeding; the deliberate
and false statements made to this
honorable court by the over-zealous
counsel for the appellee in their evil
dent passion to prevent this high
court from considering the facts and
the truth concerning appellants
several petitions to transfer from the
APPELLATE Court should not go unre-
warded.
Counsel for appellants, as MEM
bers of the bar of this honorable
court, can not and will not shirk their
duty as officers of this court in re-
naming silent under the circum-
stances involved in the present mo-
ton, where the court itself has been
deliberately imposed upon and a
fraud perpetrated upon the court by
counsel for the appellee (Miles and
MARTINI in this appeal"
Morgan, in the brief, character
lied the dry attorneys actions as
contemplate conduct" In closing,
the court was asked to consider the
merits of the appeal untinged by
fraud of counsel for appellee"