Show ORAN D ACCUSED OF GROSS FRAUD Murray Jurist Jim Luke and ann Attorney Thomas Kane Are Arrested CONSPIRACY THE CHARGE MEANS FINE AND JAIL TERM Iff THEY TH EY ARE CONVICTED Charles F Durand justice of the peace at Murray James A Luke a collector for the Merchants Protective association and Thomas Kane K ne an at attorney attorney torney orney for the time same sume institution wore were arrested J yesterday afternoon upon a n charge of criminal conspiracy A i war warrant warrant rant is also out for the arrest ot at Francis G Luke L ke general manager of the he Merchants Protective association who vho is in Alaska The complaint against the four more molt alleges criminal conspiracy in iii sevea different civil cases brought by the tha Merchants Protective association in Ia Durands court The maximum penal penalty ty y for the offense Is 1000 fine and one years imprisonment in the county jail Durand if convicted will forfeit hla hig hl office In addition to any other penalty which may be inflicted upon him The complaint was sworn worn to by Rob Robert Robert Robert ert Bridge a deputy y sheriff It was waa drawn dra wn up by b Assistant County Attorney Attorney Attorney ney Hanson who has bias been devoting his spare time for weeks weaks gathering data upon which to arrest Durand and the Luke outfit The war warrants warrants warrants rants were issued by Olty Judge J J Whitaker and Deputy Sheriff Joseph C Sharp arrested Durand Jim Luke and Kane I alle Judge Whitaker after as us ascertaining that all ull the ac Used own property released r leased them on their own ova recognizance to appear when they are wanted for trial Seven Charges Against Them The complaint starts out by making a general sweeping charge against the defendants to the effect that they did wilfully unlawfully and conspire combine and confederate to together together gether ether falsely to t move and maintain certain suits actions and proceedings to commit acts for the tho perversion and obstruction of justice and the due ad administration administration administration ministration of the laws and falsely to cheat client and aud defraud sundry and divers persons of property The complaint then proceeds to state seven instances in which it alleges that this conspiracy was waa wa committed Jan 26 1906 it is he two Lukes Lukos and Kane filed led a complaint in 11 Durands court In a n suit wherein A Mayer was plaintiff and W F Olson defendant Acting In furtherance of or orthe the conspiracy it is charged Durand assumed jurisdiction of this case al although although although though he had no right to do so Still furthering the conspiracy it is charged Durand issued a writ of at attachment attachment in the case cas although neither the affidavit nor npr bond for attachment Required by b law a aw w were wore filed in his court The Lukes and Kane it Is then sought to lo collect the debt under this attachment To aid d the conspiracy cy it is alleged Durand agreed with the defendant to dismiss the case and did pretend to dismiss it Notwithstanding Notwithstanding standing this pretended dismissal however Durand is charged with en entering entering entering judgment and issuing execution against the defendant under which the Luke aggregation sought to collect the amount alleged to be bt due This case is now pending in the time district court upon the application tion of Olson the defendant for a writ of prohibition restraining Durand from enforcing the pretended judgment Another Case of Fraud March 14 the complaint charges the Lukes and Kane filed an action in Du Durands Durands Durands rands court courtin in which B F Reich was wast Alleged t ged to be plaintiff and amid A B Pitta defendant Durand Is again charged with ith assuming jurisdiction of the case knowing that he had no jurisdiction ond with issuing a writ of or attachment without either the required affidavit or o bond being flied filed with him The same thing thin It Is alleged hap happened happened happened the following day in the case of Ella E Henessy H vs V John Walsh Identically the same charges assum assuming ing jurisdiction im illegally fIlet lly and issuing a bogus writ of are made in inthis inthis inthis this case June 9 1906 the time complaint charges charses the Lukes Kane Iane and Durand represented represented represented to William Hobbs that Lyon Richardson had secured a judgment against him before J 1 P Du Durands rands predecessor on the bench In Tat furtherance of this conspiracy it Is IR charged Durand issued an execution against Hobbs knowing that the judg judgment jud ment mont was fraudulent No Summons Is Served June 30 1906 1900 the complaint charges that the Lukes and Kanes represented to Al that a civil complaint had been filed med against him before Du Durand Durand rand and that summons had been boen served upon him regularly and that all necessary steps had been taken to obtain a judgment against him himIn himIn himIn In this case ease the bald charge Is mad that Durand not only issued a writ of or attachment without requiring either bond or o affidavit but that he did so that no summons in the case ene had ever ever been served upon th the tha de defendant defendant It Is also charged that the Lukes and Kane knew know that had never been served Aut Aug 9 1906 1006 it is charged that Francis G Luke Lule represented to Joseph Allsop that he lie Luk had obtained from Durand a release of garnishment in a case cae ca e where Allsop was defendant and W H Ferrebee was plaintiff when as a matter of fact he had not obtained obtain d any such release Bald Fraud Is Alleged Aug 30 1906 tho the complaint charges cha all of the defendants represented to lo Lewis H Mo that a complaint had been filed against him before Du Durand Duland Durand rand land by O 0 G Shaw assignee of C G Sinclair It was also represented to Moshier that all steps necessary to ob oh obtain tain tam judgment against ng him had d been b en enken n taken ken kenIn In this case too Durand is accused Continued on Page 2 DURAND ACCUSED OF GROSS FRAUD F AUD Continued from Page 1 of issuing a writ of attachment with without without without out bond or affidavit knowing full fun well that no summons had ever been served upon Moshier Or judgment properly proper obtained Will Try to Convict Them I IThe The Time county attorneys office has been deluged with complaints about Du Durands Durands u rands manner of administering justice in cases where the time Luke collection agency was yas as involved and the district court has been flooded with writs Df f prohibition to restrain Durand from collecting judgments obtained by Luke LuIe Durand was visited by Mr Hanson before belore the time arrest was sas as made yesterday afternoon Deputy Sheriff SharD Sham was along and Mi Mr Hanson asked the Mur Murray Murray Murray ray Jurist several questions about his manner of conducting his court before Sharp flashed the warrant Kane was present at the time time and Sharp brought both of them to the city ity Mr Hanson confiscated Durands court docket and it will be used in evidence against him Durand took his arrest coolly Kane has an office in Murray Sev Several Se eral complaints filed in the district court have accused him of frequenting Durands court most of his waking waIting hours and of directing Durand how to tomake tomake tomake make entries on his docket Another Charge Against Him Another criminal charge is now pending against Durand wherein he is accused of threatening to kill J S Barlow editor of the Murray Eagle who criticised him in his paper Jus Justice Justice Justice tice Charles Holm of Murray 1 urray has this case under advisement Mr Hanson said last night that he lie would have the defendants arraigned early this week Francis Brands G Luke is not due to return to Salt Lake for about two weeks but he lie will be ar arrested rusted rested immediately i med e upon on his return |