OCR Text |
Show THE DEMURRER OYERRULED. The Court Orders That Treseder be Arraigned Monday morning for Trial on the Charge off Bribery. The demurrer in the case of N. V. ! Jones and Frank Treseder, indicted for I bribery, was argued before Judge Zane j this morning by Arthur Brown, Esq., Treseder's attorney. The demurrer was brought up really in Treseder's exclusive behalf, but the fact of his being implicated impli-cated with Jones made the results apply with force to both individuals. Le Grand Young was present in court, but took very little part in the proceedings, and the worthy Nathaniel V. Jones himself was an interested auditor, as well as a diseomfitted one, before the case was disposed dis-posed of. The grounds upon which the demurrer was made are generally looked upon as exceedingly fragile, and are as follows : First That the same (the complaint) does not conform substantially to the requirements re-quirements of section 150 and 151 of the criminal procedure of the Territory of Utah, statutes of 1878, page 94. Second That the facts stated do not constitute a public offense. Third That the indictment does not i set forth any duty which would be vio- j lated or could be violated by the said j Edward A. Franks, named in "the indict- I ment, by revealing to the said defendant, or informing the said defendant when any arrests or what arrests would be made by the United States Marshal or any of his deputies. Fourth Said indictment does not set forth any act which the said defendant attempted to procure of the said Edward A. Franks in violation of his lawful duty, or any act which the said plaintiff was to omit to do in violation of his lawful duty. Fifth Said indictment does not state what the lawful duty of said Edward A. Franks was as a deputy LTnited States Marshal, or otherwise; and does not explain why and how the information mentioned in the indictment would be in violation of his duty if given to the defendant. Sixth The act complained of to-wit : Giving information to defendant of intended in-tended arrests was not in violation of any duty of a deputy United States Marshal. Seventh The indictment does not state that the defendant or either of them knew that the said Edward A. Franks was a deputy United States Marshal at the date of the said payment of monev set forth in the indictment. Eighth The indictment does not set forth that the defendants or cither of them knew any of the circumstances under un-der which the offer of payment of money to Edward A. Franks would become a. crime. Judge Zane delivered his opinion shortly after the final arguments were made, and it will not prove a surprise to anybody, we imagine, that that opinion was adverse to the demurrer. The Court held that there could be no question as to the fact that to have done what he was importuned to do and as an inducement for which he was paid money would have constituted a violation of duty on the part of Deputy Marshal Franks. As to the reading of the indictment, it was evident evi-dent that Mr. Franks was approached as a deputy marshal and that the money was paid to him as such officer, and that besides the information respecting the arrests or other processes which he himself him-self would have in hand, he was also solicited to report all contemplated actions of the kind by the Marshal and his other deputies. Mr. Brown took exception to the opinion, and the Court was requested bv Mr. Dickson to issue an order requiring Treseder to appear for arraignment on Saturday morning. Attornev Brown demurred de-murred to this and said : "I think I can get him here by that time, but wouldn't like to have the bail forfeited, and would therefore, rather it would be Mondav, if the Court please." Mr. Dickson assented to this and it was accordingly ordered that Treseder be in court ready for arraignment ar-raignment at 10 o'clock Mondav morning. morn-ing. Will he get thar ? |