Show SWAN CASE WILL 60 TO JURY FATE OF ALLEGED BOUNTY NEAR AT HAND arthur conlisk turned states evidence when on stand arguments heard from tuesdays standard for the second time during the trial of W R swan hia attorneys have demurred upon the ground that the indictment does not conform to the written statutes that the crime specified in the charges goes not constitute a felony therefore making the proceedings ce of the trial to date void much eloquence waa used by the defendants fend ants attorneys and the attorney for the state and numerous cases tried in other states and some that idere tried before the united states judicial cobit were introduced as precedents set by the highest authorities on law in the country in co the statutes of the state of utah a felony must be specifically pointed out in the charge of the crime before u is possible to try a man for that offense it was claimed by counsel for the defendant that the indictment aid not specify neither did the accusation of swan as being the man who presented the false claim to the county coincide with the facts in the case point was met by citing the statutes baat place all accessories to a crime on the same level as the principals and liable to the same punishment then defendants lawyers urged the granting of the demurrer ae on the grounds that a discrepancy existed between the allegation ana the proof in the voucher it states that animals were killed and paid for but does not classify how are sou going to prove that animals wore not another that were paid ifor legally was asked by defendants counsel as they concluded by challenging tiia state to prove that evidence had been given that would or coula convict swan 0 a felony in the reply to this question it was stated by the state that the voucher itself with the signature of conlisk attached was prima facie evidence of the mans guilt that justice could not toe perverted on a mere technicality that the evidence while it did not prove that swan himself presented the claim before a county clerk it did prove that swan was an accessory to the act cereby making himself equally guilty in the eyed of the law and justice with the principals for the second time judge hawell refused to grant atre demurrer in his refusal he did eay however that some points had been brought up thai would make it necessary to consider to determine just what course would he adopted court was dismissed until 2 p m the objections raised this morning by defendant counsel were this afternoon overruled by judge howell no more testimony was introduced and the jury is being addressed by the attorneys prior to adjourning to the bailiffs room if an agreement Is readily arrived at the verdict will be known before morning testimony late yesterday with the completion of the testimony of arthur who testified as to the confession be had made to the district attorney both sides in the case of the state of utah vs will R swan rested their case and it was continued until this morning As conlisk recited incident after incident in the alleged bounty frauds ahls voice became low and while being broso examined by attorney W L sia ginnes he could scarcely be heard it being necessary several times to ask that he speak louder in answer to the questions of judge maginnis conlisk told or the transaction alleged IS have taken place between himself and swan on january 15 ot his coming to ane county clerks office and receiving a voucher for which was made out by swan signed by conlisk ana aborn to by miss erb after obtaining a few general statements of the transaction judge ma gannis allied the witness it he had been offered any inducements 10 turn states evidence to which mr conlisk replied that he was willing to tell what ha imea who promised you that it iou turned states evidence you would not be prosecuted asked judge mr halverson promised that I 1 should not be proceeded against re piled conlisk Q in order that you could go scott free A yes Q did know when you made this confession that there were several other and more charges for which you might be prosecuted and sent to the penitentiary A no air Q you were not warned by mr halverson A no sir judge then took the warrant book from which the alleged fraudulent warrant bad been made out and showing it to conlisk asked Is that your signature Q do you know alie consequences of swearing to something that Is not truo A no fair judge then explained the seriousness ot perjury and suddenly turning to the witness fiala did you also swear to the n arrant no sir was the prompt reply ot Conlis fc vas it read lo 10 you be was aak ed no sir was the reply again referring to the warrant beoh judge asked it it were not miss eibs name which appeared on the warrant as that of the person who the witness when ha had leads out tho affidavit oti which the warrant was obtained yes said conlisk Q nd miss eab did not swear you A no air Q did see miss urb sign the warrant A linoir I 1 knew nothing about lier signing it testimony along this line brought out that it had beu customary cor the clerks in the office lo 10 swear I 1 0 warrants without ever having witness ei or worn thoa whom the warrants nere issued judge Maginn la then cross examined the as to led up to alq making a confession and from choca he had first received assurances that he would not be prosecuted in answering these question clr conlisk told the same aary that h had told during the examination athla completed the cross examina tion and after district attorney hal verson had asked a few question ha announced that the state rested at the request of the atto meya fon uie defence a recess at 15 was taken as the defence wished to secure a witness who had not subpoenaed at the conclusion of the recess sir conlisk waa recalled and an en deavor made by the defense to im peach his testimony it early de that the attorneys tor the de tense had made a mistake and the so notified the court both sides then rested yield case |