OCR Text |
Show HELD TO ANSWER Alleged Knife-Weilder Bound Over for Trial The preliminary trial or hearing of Carl Shreve, chargedby Paul Comiskey with assault with a deadly weapon, was heard Monday before Justice Nichols, attorneys: Sam Cline and Shirley Atkin aoting for prosecution and defense, respectively. Readers of the NEWS will recall that on June 29th, while ejecting Shreve from the TJnjon sal(jon, Cora-isky, Cora-isky, a portef at the latter place, received re-ceived a Unife-out in the left cheek. Shreve had been accused pf ''lifting" a tan dollar bill belonging to a customer, cus-tomer, and had been thrown out ol the place. On returning tothe saloon. Shreve was again ppt out and during the scuffle on she sidewalk, Comiskey had received his wound. At the trial the prosecution introduced intro-duced evidence tending to show that the, defgndarjt had a;jked a friend for a loan jut befoya the fight began, had picked up from the counter a ten dollar bill belonging to another man, which bill, it was testified, had been found on the defendant's perspp, whep searched.. Had returned, ta the saloon after being ejected and had been thrown out again, and that during the struggle, the defendant had "knifed" the complaining witness and ha,d run across tile street, through the Ohio 3afe and toward the tracks, where Marshal Baxter arrested him. The Marshal testified that he had taken from the prisoner a knife whose blade was as yet wet with blood. The defense called witnesses to controvert this testimony and, set up the plea that the defendant had not attempted to Bteal the ten dollar bill, but that, on the contrary, the saloon attaches had takeu a ten dollar bill from him which was his o,vn, and which,, wjtnesses tpstijied, the defendapt had ju his pocket before first entering the saloun. .Defense claimed that the defendant had entered en-tered the saloon the second time to get back his money, had been thrown out and in self defense had struck the complainant, although not admitting admit-ting that a knife was used. Indeed, the defense claimed hat the idntit of- the knife had not been established, uor had the act of using a knife been proven. The prisoner claimpd that knife exhibited in the case was not his and that he had no knife at the time of the fracas. A wordy war of counsel, over wha coustifutej syfficieut eyi.lence on which to hold a prisoner for trial at a higher court, aonsumed considerable time, at the end of which, Justice Nichols took the case under advisement. advise-ment. Later the Justice decided to hold the defeudant for trail before the District Court, which meets in September. |