| Show U S commissioners COURT this morning before IT S commissioner mIss loner ioner mayor wells was arraigned for a p preliminary re investigation of the charge preferred against him by U S deputy marshal J M orr for resisting said orr in dle die the discharge of his duty at the polls at the city hall on the ord ard instant and also with an attempt to commit an assault upon him carey and mcbride appeared for the prosecution sutherland and anit snow enow for the defence the prosecution called 3 it orr to the stand who testified that on election day his ingress to the polling room at the city hall was obstructed ted by mayor wells and that when he declared he was there as a B S officer and had a right to be there and insisted upon entering the polling room the mayor raised ills his hand in which was a walking cane as if to strike him 1 orr and aud that he orr believed that tha t was his intent lie he then seized the mayors arn arm exclaiming bonu strike me h and then said 1 I arrest you ho he I 1 and others othe then attempted to arrest the mayor which caused a great rush and in the rush they lost their hold of the person n of the mayor but he was quentio subsequently quent lT brought before tile the U S commissioner and held beld over to appear for examination on this charge the defence called the following witnesses daniel W jones E T williams andrew burt david davi d leaker and S W taylor who all testified in substance that orr was under the influence of liquor on election day while at the city hall that he was very officious clous elous and helped delpe to break ins int instead tead of to preserve the tile peace and that this was the reason the mayor refused him admission into the polling room that the altercation between orr and the mayor caused considerable that when orr and others seized the mayor part of ills his tl clothing ething was torn from his per person that there were cries of alg G tl d m him bim kill killuim him 21 brinig him out ac and that when the thu mayor lined up his hands in which as was waa customary he liada hada walking cane cano it was only todias to draw attention and to command the tho the tho peace and that all tho the force ho he used was in striving to extricate himself from the clutch of orr and others who were seeking to do him personal violence if i the prosecution called wick by way of rebuttal who testified that there was but little excitement cit ement at the time of the altercation above referred to that lie he assisted orr to arrest the Mayon mayworth May orth that at the latter did raise kalse his cane ina lna in a menacing and threatening manner that the crowd as a general thing and the U S D P Ms aus especially peel ally aily were sober and that the latter acted like gentlemen their sole aim being to preserve the peace and to guard lile the purity of the election I 1 vey very brief arguments were made by judge sutherland hutha Sutha for forthe otho othe defence and by mr care carey for fon the prosecution when the coUrt made the following i RULING the evidence in this case though not very extensive is somewhat conflicting I 1 am to assume that thal mr wells tood in the door of the polling room as described by most of the witnesses mr orr came up and was asked by by mr wells if lie he was milton orr and that bli mr orr replied in the affirmative that mr wells then told him to go away which orr refused to do saying he was a deputy united marshal and thad that he had a enter there them that is about the substance of the difficulty it appears then that mr orr makes an attempt to enter the hall andar and mr welts wells vell veli 4 resists mr wells has his cane which is raised some say menacingly other say that it was not and so far as the cane eano part of tho the business is concerned I 1 am uhler under 4 the impression that there was no actual menace and that the resistance sis sia si tance stanco accurse occurred t in another way the complaint charges directly that daniel H wells mayor mayo of said city salt sait egale lake nalie e city by threats men menaces abes etc resi resl resisted sied sled an of officer fleer mr orr in the performance of his duty under aln an act of congress and further that the sa said sald ld daniel H veils wells did assault affiant with a cane I 1 am satisfied that that part of tile tiie assault has hav not been s sufficiently proven for me to consider hence it remains for me to determine what guilt there is in this charge against mr liin wells who is charged as mayor of salt lake city aud and I 1 recognize him as being present at the di city elty alty hall at the time this difficulty occur reLin redin that capacity whether it he good law or not I 1 am willing to give J my opinion that it is mr tv Well Vell sas mayor of the city had bad an official right to be at the city hall eve every citizen has a private right to be thereon there thero on the day of election and I 1 think etwas it was a fit place for themas thomas orto b be e at officially on that day I 1 am also under the impression that the mayor had been misinformed as to the facts surrounding the polls on that day but that would be no excuse for au an infraction of the law afterwards I 1 am satisfied that he went to the city cly hall bell beli believing eving that there wasla wasja a disturbance tur bance there or that there was likely likel y to be one and that acting 4 under this impression he be took his place in the door of the polling loom icom it happened that the first objectionable person who came along was mr orr and tho the colloquy which lias has been detailed by several witnesses took place mr wells asked mr orr who he was and ho he replied and then mr wells weel objected to ills his entering the polling room I 1 am told that immediately before this there was perfect edaco peace and tranquillity both in and butof that room and as you permit me to go to the evidence presented in a former case I 1 find that there were several deputy marshals mars baid haid inside enough to protect the peace and to preserve the purity of the ballot box there were tw two 0 or more deputies inside at tt that I 1 moment and I 1 do i not lot see what n necessity ces there was for mr orr to go in there I 1 do not deny jils hla right to enter nor question ills his motives and lot let it be bewell well weli understood that I 1 do not approve of the resistance of the men but I 1 conclude that the mayon mayor acting upon whatever impressions he be had as chave signified sigri si nned nied before did ih official authority under these thesel impressions m press lons ions to prevent what he believed to be imminent namely a disturbance the recriminations and accerbi ties that were interchanged by the parties do not have havel a feathers weight with me it has been testified that some of the parties were intoxicated and just as good proof lias has been presented that they tiley were noti am satisfied that there was no serious drunkenness there on the part of the officers either of the city or of the united states from the tho mayor down on one side to the marshal down on the other it was as sober a gathering of citizens as is is apt to occur in any community of this size what happened afterwards as the effect of this melee between mr wells the tile mayor and deputy marshal marshai orr is the worst part of it but that does not come into this case at all I 1 am satisfied I 1 am also satisfied thal that the evid ovid ence enco does not present to td me probable cause for the detention of mr wells I 1 think that the resl resi resistance stance stanco or the assault or whatever other otence was committed it if any at all does not amount to sunn sufficient lelent to warrant warrantee me in holdin ghim him and he Is disch discharged a r ged |
