Show OGDEN DISTRICT COURT proceedings FRIDAY DECEMBER ad at ten tins this morning burnine mur nine the judge in a brief clear comprehensive manner charged the jury in the case of the united unify states vs P A nielsen Nl elsen the penalty attached to the crime with which tie be is ir charged is a flae fine of not more than or imprisonment in the penitentiary penitent laty not more mere than one year at 1010 the jury retired the grand jury then tiled into court and through their foreman presented pres presented entea a large bundle of documents of formidable sizes supposed to contain indictments in the care of edward roh vs cum in mangs ng et ai the attorney for plaintiff la moved the court tor for judgment on t the he pleadings for the amount admitted to be due the attorney for the defendant waived notice and tile the motion was grantom gran tad tod the attorney for the defense then opened toe argument on the motion to dismiss the indictment against abraham chadwick on the ground that abat the name of one of the witnesses was not endorsed on the foot of the indictment ile he argued that there were two ules cles or reasons why the motion should be granted and why the document should be thrown out one it is the right of the aci accused used to know by y whom he is accused and another is that he be may have time to ascertain the character of the accusers and have time to accept or im impeach peach the credibility of those witnesses he read various authorities to sustain his position he proved from competent authorities ties that the names of all the witnesses must appear in the indictment in order to warrant a proper fl finding I 1 ile he also showed another defect in the indictment which was that instead of a lady and a gentleman the names of two ladies were endorsed on the document as witnesses which renders it imperfect and invalid after a fea fe remarks in reply from mr I 1 r lilies hiles the court took the matter under advisement abe case of the etc against thomas read bead denand Se nand thomas hull charged with obstructing a public road was called the defense offered to waive a jury and have the case tried before the court he remarked that the question in evolved was one more of law than of fact the court however preferred to havela havea jury paneled impaneled im which was done don e and F powers fowers was called and sworn as a witness for the tion althis at this juncture the defense requested the prosecution to state what ebdon of ane fatute the indictment was drawn under mr hiles said it was either under gander section or 2166 of the compiled laws or both the defense here interposed an objection to the introduction of any testimony in the case for the reason that the in does not charge the commission of any public offense in support of tills motion he showed that section had been repealed before the indictment n was found foun dand and that the indictment did not dot charge any offense under section 2166 which only applied toa to a person who maliciously dis up removes displaces breaks or otherwise injures or destroys any public hiril highway way 0 or bridge etc in this case the the indictment charges that defendants had bad obstructed a public road by placing a barbed wire fence across it but this did not come within the meaning of section 2166 and it if it d did id the indictment was fatally defect defective lye in that it did not charge that the act was done maliciously counsel then read section 21 of an act pertaining to highways approved march 11 1886 a and ad which he be said was intended to rea reach ch this class of cases the section reads any person who has erected or maintains or may hereafter erect and maintain a berce or other structure along and upon any portion of a public highway and who after beins being duly notified by the county court to remove the same shall neglect or reful refuge e to do so within twenty days clays or such further time not exceeding three months as may be determined by such county court is guilty of a misdemeanor the court then asked mr hiles what he had bad to say about it that gentle mau luau after some hesitancy replied P ilea that he thought the motion would have to be allowed his honor sustained the objection and at once instructed the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty chica they did without leaving their seats this case has been before the courts aud and the public for a considerable time and much interest has been manifested by the people in relation to the result which seemed ti to give general satisfaction at pm the jury in the nietsou niels on case cume came into court and stated that they had bad not been able to arrive at a verdict they were again remanded to the jury room for consideration of the mutter matter A recess was taken till 2 p in this afternoon henry B gwilliams was arraigned arraign td on ft a three ment and pleaded not guilty guilly to all of them the trial is set for wednesday dec ath at the jury came in and stated that they could not aree agree on a verdict in the nellson neilson case they had balloted a great number of times on the case but always with the same result that result was not stated feeling that they had bad exhausted all the means they had bad in endeavor endeavoring ing to arrive at a verdict and failing to do so the jury were discharged unless the ahe pr prosecution se cutlo abandons the case it will necessitate a new trial the court then took a until five pm |