| Show JONES AND TRESEDER Separate Trials Denied the Defendants Defend-ants The Demurrer in the Jones Case Overruled A Hard Time Obtaining a JuryAn Open Venire Issued for Twenty More Jurors i A Demurrer Filed in the Homer Duncan Dun-can Case Hyrum B Folsom Sentenced The Third District Court was crowded once more this morning with principals witnesses lawyers and spectators and great interest was shown in the celebrated bribery case against Treseder and Jones The first matter taken up was the calling call-ing of Homer Duncan to plead to the indictment in-dictment upon which he was arraigned a few days ago Mr Rawlins stated that a demurrer I bad been filed in this case on the ground that the crime was not committed within the district At the request of Mr Dick son the argument upon the demurrer was suspended until Monday next Hyrum P Folsom who a few days ago pleaded guilty to a one count UC indictment indict-ment was then called The court asked the defendant what was his intention as to the future i e whether he intended to obey the law or fn rrn nn in uinlHnn nf if I Defendantanswercd that he did not wish to make any remarks about it and he was therefore sentenced to a term of six months imprisonment in the Penitentiary Peniten-tiary and to pay a fine of 300 and costs standing committed until the fine and costs are paid JONES AND TltESEDER The case against Jones and Treseder was then called It will be remembered that in January last these two defendants offered to pay Deputy Franks 100 per month provided that he would inform them of all warrants in the hands of the Marshal against persons charged with polygamy and unlawful cohabitation in time to prevent their arrest The case created considerable of a sensation at the time of the arrest of the parties and the trial has been awaited with great interest Mr Brown demanded a separate trial for his clients Tiie demand was objected to by the prosecution and was denied by the Court Mr Brown for the defense then interposed inter-posed a general demurrer to the indictment indict-ment on several different grounds the principal ones of which were that there was nothing in the indictment to show that the defendants were aware of the fact that Mr Franks was an officer of the United States and that there was no intent shown on the part of the defendants defend-ants antsMr Mr Brown began his argument upon the demurrer by stating that he wished to call particular attention to the subject of the knowledge of the defendants as to what office Franks held The statute makes a crime of an attempt to bribe an officer with the intent to induce him to do some act in violation of his official duty Mr Brown then went on to show that in such cases it was the intent and not the act which constituted the crime He then read the indictment showing that there was nothing in it to show that the act had been committed knowingly He quoted several authorities to sustain his position JMr JJickson stated that he had argued at considerable length the demurrer in the Treseder case which was upon the same grounds as the one now being considered con-sidered and he therefore did not care to say anything on this question The Court stated that the demurrer would be overruled Exceptions taken by the defense Mr Brown then asked for a separate trial for his clent within the discretion of the Court The defense took an excep tion to the ruling The defendants both of whom had been previously arraigned were then called upon for their pleas and both pleaded not guilty The jury was then called George Shell went down under a chal I lenge from the defense on the ground that he had formed an unqualified opin ion and Edward Berry was excused on the ground that he was a member of the Grand Jury which indicted the defendants I defend-ants J 1 M Harvey Boman Cannon R W Crane and Wells Clark had all read the particulars of the case at the time the arrests were made and had formed unqualified un-qualified opinions and were therefore excused Joseph Foreman was challenged on the ground that he was not a taxpayer The objection was overruled and an exception was taken by the defense Mr Foreman was then excused on the ground that he had formed an unqualified opinion S C Pancake had formed an unquali fied opinion and was excused and James Winchester went down on the same ground Joseph Foster had formed a qualified opinion He stated that his opinion was that the defendants were both guilty and the qualification to the opinion was a slight belief that they possibly might be proved innocent It is needless to say that he was excused R P Martin J B Wilson and Albert Fisher were excused upon the ground that they had all found unqualified opin ionsAllred Allred Thompson had expressed a pos itive opinion and was therefore excused E MBynon had heard of the affair in every possibleway and believed them in the main and had no doubt expressed an opinion He had been introduced to Mr Treseder Had talked with Mr Franks about the case and was there fore excused George Mullett had formed a positive opinion and was excused Louis Bamberger had formed a pre judice against one of the parties and was I challenged by Mr Brown He stated to Mr Dickson that he thought he could I give a fair trial in this case The challenge was 0prrnpr1 I i Mr Dllss j jo i i j Dusseldorf had formed a positive I opinion and was excused An open venire was then issued for twenty jurors returnable at 2 oclock and the Court then adjourned until that hour A JURY QBTAINED At the afternoon session the examina tion of jurors from the venire open were examined and after an hour and a half of hard work the list was finally completed and the jury stands as follows Thomas Davis L Bamberger Charles Shields M S Simmons Edward Berry J E Williams Frank McLaughlin J N Parker J L Osborn M Livingstone George Morrison S H Conley The examination of witnesses had just begun when our report closed |
