The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-05-13

answer the original disobeyed
process?
7. Why was Barker released with
out having been called into court to
answer either the original diSobeyed
process or the contempt?
did You Give Authority"
8. Why was Barker released on
his own recognizance?
9. Did you give Joel A. Baker au-
thority to sign the release paper
upon which Lee Barker was released
Nov. 26, 1884?
Judge Baker last Friday had re-
fused to accept and answer the
same questions which we're offered
him by two Times reporters.
A registered letter then was sent
to the Judge.
Since you have declined to hear
these questions and since The Indi-
annapolis Times believes that you, as
duly elected public official Of
Marion County. should make known
the answers to these questions, not
only to Times readers, but 10 the
citizens Of Marion County, I there
fore am writing you asking that
you answer by mail the questions
which you will find set out here, ="
the Times letter to Judge Baker
stated.
No question was propounded that
did not bear directly upon officially
unexplained details of the Barker
case.
The questions we're asked Judge
Baker because records of his court
we're said, by couIC attaches. not to
show what criminal process Lee
Barker had disobeyed that resulted
in his arrest.
The attachment upon which
Barker was taken into custody at
his home, 6049 Forest Lane, on the
night Of Oct. 81, 1884, directed that
Barker be brought before Judge
Baker.
No Explanation Offered
No record could be found in the
Criminal Court indicating that
Barker had been brought before
Judge Baker. Barker himself said
he never was taken from the Jail
during his 26-day imprisonment.
Judge Baker has offered no ex-
PLANTATION for the release of Barker
from the county jail Nov IS, 1884.
other than that Lee Barker was
allowed to go on his own recognize
ance after he had promised to re-
turn after Christmas with his
brother, Dell
According to law, Lee Barker
should have been committed under
the 1926 sentence.
Judge Baker previously had told
The Times he had authorized Joel
A. Baker to sign The release paper
upon which Lee Barker was re-
leased Nov. 26, 1884.
This question was repeated In
The Times letter to Judge Baker.
Lee P. Barker was released from
the Marion County jail where he
was confined on the contempt of
court charge after the $3.50 had been
placed in escrow. with a prominent
local physician. for Prosecutor Her
bert M. Spencer.
Spencer Is Challenged
Prosecutor Spencer, although not
in office at the time, had been
elected prosecutor. He told The In
dianapols Times that the sum rep
resented attorneys fees" and would
have been turned over to him If he
had been successful in obtaining a
suspended sentence for Barker.
Mrs. Penelope A. Barker, wife Of
the convicted bootlegger, challenged
Mr.. Spencer to explain when he had
ever served her husband in legal
capacity in the courts.
Both Mr.. Spencer ana Joel A
Baker we're at the county Jail the
night that Barker was released.
Nobody Believes The Times"
When two Times reporters Wis
tied Judge Baker in his court last
Friday he was informed they had
been instructed 10 inquire whether
he would answer the written ques-
tons which we're offered him.
Judge Baker repeated the attack
upon Mr. Powell.
He added:
The Times prints untrue state
ments and nobody in Indianapolis
believes The Times anyhow"
Could you name any specific in
stance in which The Times has
printed an untruth in the Barker
case?" Judge Baker was asked.
Yes. plenty" said Judge Baker.
He Immediately terminated the in
terview by passing into his private
Office.
Later. It was learned. Judge Baker
told q reporter for another evening
paper taht he would answer the
questions in that newspaper. The
answers were not published Satur-
day in that paper. -