OCR Text |
Show WHO PUT THE TROUSERS IN TOM KING'S BED? . .V , Tom King was found by a Jury of his peers Tuesday afternoon to be as guiltless guilt-less of .theft as a new-born babe is guiltless of sin." His vindication was a surprise to those who had become acquainted ac-quainted with the history of the veter an of many a term In the city Jail and on the city work gangs. King was accused of having stolen from the police station a pair of trousers trous-ers of the value of $5. For many years King has been a trusty in the city Jail. He has served numberless sentences for drunkenness, and invariably, except ex-cept the day before Memorial day, he has pleaded guilty. The sentence is always al-ways the same, thirty days. As soon as he Is sentenced. Tom gets his broom and mop and begins to clean up the place. But this time Tom demanded a Jury i . trial. He was indignant when accused of the theft, regardless of the fact that the trousers were found concealed in Tom's bed. How they got there Tom did not know. Who had access to the place where the trousers were originally original-ly kept he did not know, and who Vould have had so great a spite atralnt him as to secrete, the garments in his bed in order that he might be convicted convict-ed of the theft, he could not even guess. ' . . Toms protestations of innocence were deep, long-and loud when the formal accusation was read to him. Would he plead guilty to theft? Never! All the traditions of the Police court were shattered. Would he go. the limit to prove that he was no common, low-down low-down petty thief? Sure! So Tom went the limit. Where he got the money he himself only knew, but Tom got lawyer, and demanded a Jury trlah The court and all the attaches at-taches of the court gasped, but Tom insisted that such was his right under the Constitution. The case looked bad for Tom when Police Sergeant Roberts testified that he had missed the trousers from their accustomed nail in the desk sergeant's office, and that when he searched the room occupied by King be found the garments secreted in the middle of a great pile of other goods which he alleged al-leged were stolen. It looked still blacker for Tom when O. B. Hlte testified testi-fied that the trousers were his, and that he had never disposed in any way, shape or form- his right, title and Interest In-terest in the garments. But it did not seem to matter much to Tom, and regardless of the fact that the testimony continued to accumulate and pile up in a great black mass epalnst the horiron, apparently shutting shut-ting out the light of freedom for another an-other thirty days, Tom looked cheerful, cheer-ful, even gay. Then the city prosecutor announced that the case of the city was closed, end that no other testimony would be introduced. Attorney Truman immediately filed a motion with the court, asking the court to instruct the Jury to bring In a I verdict of not guilty, and order the i prisoner discharged, on the ground that the Supreme court of Utah in a decision In the ca3e of the State cgainst Sam Grlce had ruled that the mere possession of stolen goods immediately imme-diately after the theft does not constitute consti-tute prima facie evidence of guilt. Prosecutor Willey made an able argument ar-gument against the motion, bringing all of his forces of wit, logic and oratory ora-tory to bear, in & vain endeavor to convince con-vince the court that Tom did really steal the trousers. But it was of no avail. The court sustained the motion, the Jury was Instructed, and quickly brought in a verdict. Tom was free, and the shadow of conviction no longer rested upon him. He shook hands with his attorney and with the Jurymen, and then he thanked the Judge. Tom was satisfied. He had been vindicated. vin-dicated. Tom's 'scutcheon had been made so clean that it shone like a phony diamond in the hands of the artful art-ful confidence man. DISCRIMINATION IS ALLEGED IN RATES The Salt Lake Hardware company has filed suit against the Oregon Short Line and Union Pacific Railroad companies com-panies for $19,405.2! damages tand costs of suit for alleged discrimination In freight rates. The suit is said o be the first of several sev-eral to be filed by different firms in the city. Plaintiffs charge that the railroads have been giving rebates on freight to other firms, contrary to law, and this has injured their business to the extent of the damages asked. . The hardware company alleges in its complaint that the railroads are giving a discount, or rebate, equal to 33 per cent on the published freight rates, to other firms in similar lines of business, end that this enables them to undersell plaintiffs. |