The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-05-08

e Indianapolis physician, after
Mr.. Spencer and obtained his
release" of the money.
Il acted as their attorney"
Mr.. Spencer said concerning
the Barker case. Il expected
to be paid. | understood the
money was up for me if | was
successful in convincing Judge
Baker that they should go free. l
was not successful and I did not
! receive the money"
Mr.. Spencer took Office as Prose-
Cutor on Jan. 2.
The physician admitted to The
Times that he had telephoned Joel
A. Baker, Criminal Court investi-
gator and probation officer, at p. m.
on Nov. 26, 1884, the day the money
was left in escrow.
Three Hours Before Release
This was three hours before Lee
P. Barker was released from the
Marion County Jail, where he had
been held on a contempt of court
attachment issued out OF Judge
Frank P. Bakers court.
Barker was released on an order
| bearing the name Frank P. Baker
and initiated u. A. B." Those are
the initials of joel A. Baker, Grim
inal Court investigator and proba-
ton officer.
Mr.. Spencer confirmed statements
of Jail attaches that he was with
Joel A. Baker in the turkeys Of
flee in the Jail on the night Of Nov.
26, 1884, when Lee Barker walked
from the jail without being commit
ted to prison under a 1926 dry law
| conviction.
IF the $3.50 placed in escrow with
DR.. - was for attorney fees of
what interest was that to Joel
Baker," Mr.. Spencer was asked.
Il don't know that it was of in-
torest to him." he responded.
Phone Call Is Made
But Dr.. -- has told us he tele-
phoned to Joel Baker at about s
on the evening Of Nov. IS, 1884,
three hours before Lee was released.
and that he told Joel Baker the
money had been placed with him.
The procedure, DR.. - told us, was
insisted upon by Mrs. Barker" the
! reporter continued.
Joel wanted to be sure I got the
money Mr.. Spencer replied.
The physician mad been asked
what he did Immediately after Mrs.
Barker left the $3.50 with him on
the afternoon of Nov. IS, 1884.
Il placed it in an envelope in nv
office safe. Then l attempted to
telephone Joel Baker. I could not
locate him at the Democratic Club
until s that night. Then I told him
the money had been left with me-"
the physician replied.
That seems unusual, Doctor" the
Times reporter declared. You say
the money was to be released to
Herbert M. Spencer, supposedly az
attorney fees. Why did you tele-
phone Joel Baker that the money
had been placed with you? What
interest could he have had in learn
ing that Mr.. Spencer's attorney fees
had been left in escrow with your"
Money For "Attorney Fees"
1T was my impression that thu
money was for attorney fees. In
truth Mrs. Barker had instructed
me to let Joel Baker know that the
money was in escrow with me-" the
physician continued.
But that doesn't explain what
interest Joel Baker could have had
in Mr.. Spencer's attorney fees" the
reported insisted.
AS I say" the physician replied.
1T was my impression that the
money was for attorney fees, and
that it was necessary to place the
money in escrow so Lee Barker could
be released from Jail that night. I
merely carried out instructions given
me by people who appeared to have
SNAAAAIA%[ III lit Ndo IlCIElJ Tie
stake holder"
Lee and Dell Barker, once big-tin1s
Indiana bootleggers, were convicted
in Marion County criminal court in
1925 and sentenced to serve one 70
two years for violation of a now
repealed state dry law.
Convictions Were Upheld
They appealed their cases to IN
diana Supreme Court Lees convic-
ton vas upheld in 1880, Dell's in
1882 Meanwhile they served Fed
eral prison sentence for violation Of
the Federal dry laws.
Both returned to Indianapolis.
The affirmation of their 1925 con-
vjctions was matter Of public rec
ord.
Oct. 81, 1884, Lee Barker was ar-
Turn to Page Threel