Show FIRST DISTRICT COURT 11 mai sia terna Term Hon I 1 IT zinc residing 11 may 1883 the first case called this morn ing was that of logan city vs via buck smith charged with vio lating a city ordinance prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoci eating liquors J T L rawlins Es esq appeared feared for the prosecution ant and W 11 II dixon esq and kimball heywood defended uie ule ac al aused air mr rawlins briefly opened tho the case and said the charge was foi for violating an ordinance prohibit prohibiting ta the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors defense objected to the ordinance as being invalid overruled and excepted to I 1 E mccune the first witness waa was called and he lie de deposed ased he and three others obtained liquor at the saloon of buck SiaU hin in logan on june 26 1882 they were served b by smith he ile saw buck there ac at the time drank the whisky on the premises had conversed with both defendants at the time both of them thein were carrying business at the time in liia his cross examination by I 1 y 2 mr mi dixon witness said he lie was a detective and was employed by the city of logan in that capacity it was as a detective that he entered the premises of bucka buck smith when the latter latter sold him and other parties intoxicants in violation oft of the ie ordinance prohibiting the sale of inton mcants witness resides in salt lake city and it was from there he went to logan as a detective the cross examination was ri rigid a id and lengthy but it did not shake his first statement was not en engaged aged as detective previous to hia his acting as such at logan ilia present occupation 13 that of farmer ho ile received for his services and to pa pay athe the expenses camuel claridge the next witness ne m corroborated in the main tile statements of the previous witness the cross examination elicited nothing materially new ho ile was employed by mr edward mccune to aid lani as ar a detective at logan at the time named witness is now enfa encased ed cutting and hauling wood the r e ci city ty ordinance in question was read by the prosecuting counsel who addressed the jury in defense of the ordinance showing that it was valid testimony had bad been produced t 0 r ove that it had been violated IT he then rested mr dixon addressed the tile jury briefly for the defense asking them to return a verdict of not guilty and by such verdict place lace their seal of condemnation on tee the method of the officers of the city of logan to procure procure evidence odthe of the violation of ho the ordinances they employed men to induce others to break the law baw in order to obtain evidence against them A professional informer is a man not to be trusted in any business transactions and aa such the jury ought not to trust stich men they are liable to commit perjury and would betray the best interests of any one for money he read authorities showing there was a great difre difference rence between a do detective or spy who becomes such for patriotic uti motives yes and ono one like the witnesses who counsel eald said had acted from sordid corrupt motives in order to obtain money the statements of the latter are not to be trusted and he lie asked the jury to return a verdict of not guilty counsel said that logan city had entered the premises of buck smith in the persons of the detectives invited invited them even tempted them to break the laws in order that the tile city might obtain information to convict and inflict punishment centori on the defendants it would be unsafe to convict thear on the evidence of such characters men who lend themselves to do ao what these witnesses have acknowledged they thet have done bear the impress of their characters ou on their faces they will inspire mistrust and should bo be looked upon with suspicion mr kawlins rawlins closed for the prosecution ec ution he quoted authorities 0 to o 6 show b ow that the testimony of informers such as the prosecuting witness may way be received as 03 leing of the most reliable character tho tito officers of logan city had bad the right to erna employ loy men to detect those who violated violated their ordinances the question is has tho the law in question been broken the witnesses OB on the stand have proved that buck buek bu ek fc smith violated the ordinance prohibiting hi bi the sale of intoxicants rhe the witnesses had proved that in the one part of their place of business the defendants sold summer drinks and in another part they sold fermented liquors the first named they sold 0 openly enly but the last named they bois sold secretly it was nece necessary ry for the authorities of logan to employ these or other men from a distance us no on one living livi tig there could gain admission to the saloon of buck smith for obtaining any of tho the proscribed goods counsel concluded by showing that logan city was justified u stifled in in pursuing the course it did in order to bring offenders to justice at twelve court took recess till p mi m at which hour his honor charged the tile jury in the case at half balf past one the court charged the jury and arid told them they were sole judges of the evidence given and the credibility of the wi witnesses in tho the case he ile also said if they be beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants fend ants are guilty D of violating the ordinance as charged charge in the complaint the they y roust must so find if they find finds ta their own that smith is guilty and that buck is not that he lie was not cognizant of and that ho lie did not sanction the offense committed they must brin bring 9 in their verdict accordingly cordingly nc if the jury find beyond a re reasonable doubt that the evidence is insufficient to convict either of the defendants fen fend dauts ants they must bring in in a ver diet of not guilty the tito court ex plagued to them iho the nature of the offense and the penalty attached to it at the jury retired to their foont to make up their verdict shortly after four 1 p in m tho the jur jury returned to the courtroom with their verdict which was that buck was acquitted of the charge as appeared in in the complaint and as regards a smith the jury could not a agree gree ona on a verdict A similar case same defer defendants idan ta charges same counsel w was as under way when we went to press |