Show 1 THUR BRON W WM M MUST I ANSWER Young oung Man Ordered Held to the District Court to Answer THE HEARING THIS MORNING l Wm Only Otio of Tito 1110 Cn Him in ti l Th r preliminary pr hearing of nf Arthur Drown wu was hId held before re Judge Iud Y hi ta taker ker tJ In lit the tha city rity court thai thu morning and sd at t Its I conclusion the defendant d wu was bound to II the district court and his hi bond hOAd VM WM tin at 16 IM 0 itt Ih sam ame me amount nm M a originally fixed by the I h court Tho ThA bearing this thi was w M only Lp tp Il onn OM of the th tones aM ss him charging him with forgery and nd ut a Ii forged for Instrument At the I conclusion of the hearing At ASK County Count Atty AU Hanson Il stated that shut there was WAIl wa a clerical error In the th Ih other lIhr tom rom against In Brown ron and he asked that It ft be o 1 The Th order ord r nf 4 f dIe dis dismissal I Iu missal was u made mad and SM Immediately a II anew new complaint was u as the Ihen n r The preliminary hearing In the tile leased case CAM will be bs held beld this afternoon JD JURISDICTION When the th casa ea was a called this thu morn mern merny y lag Atty AU Att C Kinney entered a ato plea pi pito f to the jurisdiction of the UI court in be he b of af his Client CHant Th Tha plea pei set a out thit J th lb the court Ourt had no jurisdiction over the ther r r n of or the I defendant because th I h complaint was not MI Iud Issued according to In Jaw law The court coun overruled ol the Ih plea 11 whereupon thereupon ft Atty tty Ihme objected to tonny tony liPS ny further proceedings In tile the case e for far the U tt reason that the th Ih court ourt had no nu nos s jurisdiction and the warrant d WIlli wK Illegal Tills Thu objection was wu u The attorney then ob I to lo the defendant being bIn com corn aUt d to tl plead pIe to the charges ehara but this objection was Has overruled Roth floth t the were then thee read rd to tn the th dr de II nn ant l he entered a pe ut ur not nol In sash each oas ou cui i T The fleet first witness called cand was WI W C I Or Orm m the IIII th mans per of 01 the Ih Mining company whose wh name wee 1 J forged ieti to a check chock for tor 13 He lie n tied J that was wal employed by th company COI pen a bookkeeper ami aM I agent He lie the tho in the body bod of or o the Ih check chck and the rn n fl t as is that thai of 01 The Uti wu was on May II tl 1 and was iU as J to 10 Brown but Orem nama m f i 1 s 4 F It H It 11 receiving teller at the II i National bank was tIlLe ae then Ibell t wiled Q to the land Id and aDd ire tte tt I writing on the chick check a as He lie Hemill II mill thit the th cheek check wag eis presented ltd h It 1 Iro n on May tl Ti and wa wie to cover cOer an overdraft again Dro ac IC account count The next w wu WAa i 0 O 1 W tV H hey y od a handwriting expert lie He tu ft that the on the lit body and ment of the forged c cas vas as a to th t of f n ns III s cheek checks which whId wert tire Introduced In evidence e by b the nute CAPTAIN C PT AI r Capt apt pt J It U t of the police fI e fIl I l VA WIl aK the tb teat latt witness He lie toll told tollof of the arrest a of 01 at t the Short line floe depot on In in May Ma 22 2 and UtI lI ltd tint that when fb n the tilt defendant had hd K tW O In inon money y on hi hit his ir I iii I When the Ihl state tested lu Its cas CIN ea Atty Kinney moved moed that thet the defendant d b on the that the tb state hind hill failed to 10 make malie n Ii caM tue n him himIn nn on In either count coutt III In the IIII complaint Whitaker hItaker at 81 onto onre denied tin the th and the Ih defendant bound or OYt ovet r tp tc I the district t court The fhe complaint Drown walt ran then by 11 Attorney Attorn Her Han Hereon toil eon and I nl a Ill DIM nt filed tiled and I the th court proceed proc with the tb prelim prelimInary Inary hearing henring un the new mw II complaint f title thU afternoon |