OCR Text |
Show IPR0SECUTI0N1 SCORES FIRST BIGJASE LOS ANGELES, July 7. A preliminary prelimi-nary victory was wonv by the prosecution prose-cution in the case of John J. McNamara, McNam-ara, secretary-treasurer of the Inter- j national Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, accused of connection with the Los Angeles ; ii r Times dynamiting. Judge John Walter f! Bordwell sustained the objection to i I E the plea of no jurisdiction in behalf llw alleged dynamiter by his at- . torneys. (V In handing down his ruling, Judge o Bordwell Baid that the Los Angeles rii. courts have jurisdiction over the !, pending trial of McNamara of 19 JL' charges of murder. The judge delft de-lft clared that the declaration of the dell'' de-ll'' fense that when a man was extradi-iI extradi-iI ted upon a charge that of dynamit-.' dynamit-.' ing in this case he could not be m.'i tried on another had no application I; so far as extradition from one state jLL to another was concerned. m Question of Jurisdiction. ft As to the allegation that extradi-j extradi-j tton had been accomplished by irreg-; irreg-; ularlties or what the defense termed r "fraud," Judge Bordwell said the a v court was not to decide anything be-k be-k cause of questions of law and that it : was not his province to enter into i' the question of how a prisoner was i ; brought Into the jurisdiction of the ', court, but to try him after he ar-;. ar-;. rived there The alleged fraud, tho court stated, had no effect upon the ; principle involved. It was agreed that the same ruling should apply in all of the pleas of no I jurisdiction entered in the other mar-iLj mar-iLj der charges against McNamara and m in the accusation of dynamiting the il Llewellyn Iron works as well. II Motions to Quash Information. 1J After the question of jurisdiction j naci Deen aennea tne defense was i asked by the prosecution If it desired W to have John N. McNamara plea to I the charges against him. The de-I de-I fense answered by filing motions to I quash the indictments, the motions I being the same as those filed yester-I yester-I day in the case of his brother, James B. McNamara, so far as the other charges were concerned. The motions chargeu bias on the part of the jurors, ju-rors, the appointment as special prosecutor of an attorney who previously pre-viously had acted as lawyer for the I Times, the intimidating of witnesses J by that attorney, the failure of the jj prosecution to attach the names of jj all grand jury witnesses to the in- , dictments, and several purely technl-f technl-f cal allegations. I The principal reason for attacking 1 the indictment charging John B. Mc- j ;- Namara with having dynamited the I. ' .Llewellyn Iron, works was the aaser-f aaser-f tion that he was not In the state at the time the explosion occurred. 1 It was agreed that the motions in i both men's cases should be consid ered together The prosecution then moved that all affidavits filed with the motion to quash be stricken from I the records. One of these was made by Raymond Wayman, editor of the Wilmington Journal, who charged "" Charles WIer, foreman of the grand fjury, with having written a denunciation denuncia-tion of union men for his punlsh-'E punlsh-'E menu '.I An objection to the court's consid- Jfc ering the motions to quash also was M made The defense objected to such m proceedure, and then followed a long technical argument, in which the I prosecution led, citing many authori-I authori-I I ties. 1 The case will come up again tomor- I row morning, when the defense Is 1 scheduled to answer the arguments of I its opponents. |