ILNews

Sidebars: Fort Wayne eatery provides tasty respite from depositions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SidebarsSo often we get the question about representing people who have been accused of a crime (and often the question comes with a sneered-up nose as if the person asking just smelled something bad). This proverbial cocktail party question comes from our fellow sisters and brothers of the bar as well as lay persons. Well, my standard answer sometimes surprises people – the circumstance is more often than not just plain sad. People come to us with legal problems that often are deeper than just whether they broke the law. There often is some sort of pathology that led them to be in a criminal predicament that we try to identify so they will not reoffend or so that they can understand how to play by the rules. Recently, Jim Voyles, Bill McCallister (our private investigator) and I were in Fort Wayne on such a case. We were taking depositions all day so when we broke for lunch, we needed a break for lunch.

Around the corner from the courthouse and down the street from the jail, we found Don Hall’s Old Gas House. Don Hall restaurants litter the Fort Wayne area and have one location I could find in Indianapolis. The Gas House offers a wide variety of starters, salads, sandwiches and entrées on their lunch menu in a not too formal, but not too casual atmosphere. The dark wood gave it almost a hunting lodge feel. In the summer they have a deck along the bank of the St. Mary’s River for dining and drinking.

They offered a handful of starter salads from a basic Caesar salad to the asparagus salad which had hearts of palm, artichokes, and red peppers with balsamic vinaigrette. For other starters, they serve up a terrific shrimp and sausage gumbo, sesame-seared Yellowfin tuna with a ginger noodle salad and wasabi, the classic hot chicken wings or spinach and artichoke dip with crispy, fried pita bread.

For entrées, the salads were enticing and creative. The pecan-crusted chicken salad which has bleu cheese, candied pecans, tomato, dried cherries, and pecan-crusted chicken with raspberry vinaigrette was under strong consideration, but Bill ultimately went with the grilled pear salad which had crumbled bacon, roasted walnuts, goat cheese with black currant vinaigrette. Bill was impressed enough that he didn’t chat much during lunch, which is a big feat. Jim opted for the Gas House Greek salad, which was really a starter salad. He was not impressed because of the beets, which he obviously did not see were described as being on the salad. He proceeded to pick out the “yucky stuff” as he called it, but ultimately he was able to finish his meal.

I had more difficulty but finally picked the daily $8 lunch special which on Tuesday was lasagna with garlic bread (the latter of which was particularly good). The lasagna was actually really good, and it came with a cup of soup or salad. That is how I claim personal knowledge of the gumbo being excellent. They also had small plate lunch for $9 which allows you to choose one of the starter salads or a bowl of soup paired with a choice of other items. Those choices were Yellowfin tuna, crab cake, blackened shrimp, three filet mignon sliders, petite Reuben or petite chicken club.

The Old Gas House’s menu offers many burger choices and sandwich choices, including vegetarian selections. Finally, there were actual dinner plate offerings that included prime rib ($11), filet mignon ($14), and jumbo fried shrimp ($10), which comes with coleslaw and fries.

The Old Gas House was a nice respite from a very long day of depositions that involved a very sad case that so often is part of our jobs as litigators of those who have disputes, problems or a moral compass that just doesn’t point north. I would recommend the Old Gas House even if you are not dealing with a tough case, and I give it 3 gavels! It is located at 305 E. Superior Street in Fort Wayne.•

__________

Fred Vaiana and Jennifer Lukemeyer practice at Voyles Zahn & Paul in Indianapolis, focusing in criminal defense. Both enjoy a good meal with colleagues and friends, and their Sidebars column reviews and rates eateries lawyers may enjoy visiting when working at courthouses throughout Indiana. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT