Council Bluffs bugle. [volume] (Council Bluffs, Iowa) 1860-1868, 1868-12-17
Msnsss ana Eawee.

Il LII any Of our readers desire per
feet Interpretation Of the words
Humbug and Farce. they wsu find
| 1t by reading the following pnseesd
ings of the District Court which we
| clip from the NonparsR:
"The case of the State ps William
Sherret, began ON Tuesday, was con-
claded on Wednesday. The prose.
cutian was conducted by AIilliard,
District Attorney, and the defense
| ny Messrs. Turk, Montgomery and
Palge. The GGlarge WAS arson. fhs
/ building alleged 20 have been burnt
by the deiendens was that located
0n broadway, In this city, known
rs the QEtics ofthe Clerk OF the lis
trict Court and the Township Clerk
of Kane Township. The Dire occsir-
red about II year ago. The building
was destroyed la the night tiIne.
The State introduced testimony
showing that the defendant was
township Clerk. That at a late
hour he RyIs seen ON the street In the
neighb0rhood Of the building, and
Was IN a atloana few yards distant,
With some other parties, and took
drink, only q few minutes BEFORE The
alarm OF IRE Was given. Tie dg-
:cadent was not In the saloon at the
time the fire nude its appearance.
No testimony was introduced on the
part of the defense, and when asked
whether he had anything 10 say to
the jury, the District Attorney re-
piled that he had no intention tn |
make any argument, but that he had |
convictions on the subject. The
counsel for the dpfeTse declined TO /
address the jury, and Judge Day
then said that the evidence was all |
circumstantial, aud did not bear /
heavily toward conviction, and in |
thar ease he would be under the ne |
cessity of setting aside the verdict |
should the jury find the defendent |
gnilty. They rendered verdict Of |
acquittal before leaving the box.
Several Gases We're then called, and |
continued, and the case of the State |
as Sherret, on the charge of ernbez-
element, taken up and Il jury eInpan-
elled. After the jury was sworn the |
District Attorney concluded he had |
no cese, and ON motion the case was
dismissed. This disposes Of the |
charges OF arson and embezE!ement,
so far as Mr. Sherrett l. concerned.
"T'he State bs John and Hannah |
Ford, on the charge of resisting an
officer In the discharge of his duties,
was dismissed.
"I'he State rs same parties, for
nuisance. resulted in a plea OF guilty |
having been entered, and an af1da-
vit of mitigation filed.
1.-The next case was the State us
Mary Strope d'i1s "French Man,
Indicted for maintaining d nuisaE, e
BY the keeping of a house of i'll fam >
fhe State examined several young
men who Il seems, had heen before
the Grand Jury, and though some OF
them sid they fgeque lresisfe place
quite often, they neither knew any
thing aisput the character OF the |
hnuse nor of the persons who had |
charge of it. None Of them ever
saw any Improper conduct at the
place. No Argument was made TO
the jury and the Court directed an
an3uitiE.
Estate Us &. McIntash-Larceny; |
Miiliard for State, Price and james
for defendant; Pleads guilty of pet
til larceny. Plea accepted by the
State, and in view of the fact that
the prisoner has already been cnufin
In mii since last term of Court, he I
was sentenced to Ave days confine
msnt and to pay casts Of proSecq~ |
tion.n