| Show A MATTER OF OP It Is II I a n of ot very rr wIth will ir al thai Ual a 1 of ot guilty hai been teen rond r 0 In th lb l v Chamber of ot th Ogden Ollen City Council While Shile he ho may havo have committed a n technical offence P In ac IC tot for work 1 as tie u a member of ot the th he council when It wai WM va not tn Ho Ct by la lu luct lait s yet jet ct tho the evidence a n o lack Ilek of tit Intent to In defraud and hh hl hi re return return turn of tuf tho the money received by voto vote of ot tho tile council amounting to whon he aw sait that th hit Iho council hail had ex ox exceeded l Its powers In III It the ito opinion U ion of ot many ti I ci ti te on I u IS havo him hint from froni f tIO o charge anti and from tho the tint that at nt In the Iho verdict Wo Vo ro tutu tilO Ciuc 3 will bo Itu but as M It li hi n II lIc lm of at law It II Is IH doubtful whether the till verdict will bo bu not net aside Possibly II a new trial might bo tie granted on a tt proper anti and that would In op olve much delay anti and expense No lino lillO wo wu who has ita followed the Ihl trial cloudy will Iho ho hc defend defendant ant of at Intentional crime hilt but a n tech technical was committed mill anti public should keep always Within the Chic law lau Tho York paid for tor wa waN icae duly performed and tind thiro Ih ought to bo ho Komu fair In lit eases casen of ot that |