A defense frequently accepted by juries (even though not recognized as a valid, legal defense) is commonly called the "unwritten law", under which juries have acquitted a husband who kills a third party who has allegedly broken up the home or has alienated the affections of the wife. As it is frequently not successful at the hands of jurors who follow the law as given to them in the court's instructions, the gamble is indeed risky, in committing such a homicide for an acquittal on this basis.

In the 1935 case of John Garcia, also known as Augustin Hermandez of Savanna, the verdict of the jury was not guilty, based upon this defense. William Antone, the victim, was of Greek nationality and operated the Elmwood Night Club in Savanna during the "roaring thirties." He was shot and killed on May 19, 1935, and the trial commenced on October 21st of that year, lasting four full days. The verdict was reached at four A.M. on October 25th.

The newly elected States Attorney Franklin U. Stransky was in his first major trial. Since there was an acquittal, no transcript of evidence was written up by the court reporter, hence few particulars are available as to the exact defense presented by W. G. Kent of Savanna and Ralph M. Eaton of Mt. Carroll who were appointed as defense attorneys by Judge Albert H. Manus of Freeport. Garcia satisfied the Court that he was a pauper and unable to hire his own counsel.

An interesting sidelight of this case was that when first appointed by the court, Attorney Eaton abruptly declined, referring to the numerous other occasions on which he had previously been so appointed after his retirement from the office of state's attorney he persisted in so declining the appointment, he would be suspended from the practice of law before the circuit court for eighteen months. (Since that time such authority has been withdrawn from the trial courts so that an attorney can only be suspended or disbarred by the State Supreme Court.) At this point Mr. Eaton necessarily reconsidered and then ac- cepted this appointment as a challenge devoting many days to the investigation and the preparation of the successful defense of this indigent defendant. The files show, however, that he claimed no fee for his services, but that his associate defense counsel, Mr. Kent, was allowed a fee of $175 which waspaid by the county.

Source: A Goodly Heritage Carroll County