, 1876-09-06

sent, such Witnesses beIhg mentioned by nan1e
md the court shown wherein their testimony il
material.
This motion, though made BY Mr. Ashton for
against tic cx- County Commissioners WHO hayp
not taken a change OF venue, for, Il lie were
discharged, tho others would undoubtedly 10
entitled to dismissal upon application. Besides,
tho question involved now one, anil hence
considerable interest Was attncl1ed to tho mo-
ton, and cx-Commtsstoncr jones, orc Of the IN.
dictcd, and about 100 people wcro present to
listen to the arguments pr6 and con.
Mr.. Aalton appeared In person for himself
and States Attorney Reed and l. N. Stiles weso
present for the prosecution.
Mr.. Reed said the last entry on the record
wns dated July T: "Aiotion to qunst over.
ruled, exception and plea Of not guilty ca.
tered"
The Court-When was tho indictment rc-
Mr.. Reed--Junc tho May term.
MI. ABHTON
above quoted, which provided that where 4 rase
was not tried ut OF before tic scco.ltl term by
the Court having jurfsdict[on,-whcre the party
waa on tho Court might continue IL to tha
third term upon showing On tlie part Of thu
people. but then tho party should be Dis
charged,
Tie coart-You have been admitted to ball
Mr. Aslatol,-Yes, but there is provision on
trial to the third term. This indictment WA
found ut the May term. At the July term |
came In by counsel anA demanded u trial, and
entered q plca of net guilty. -Four terms haye
passed since the Indictment was returned Into
Court.
Mir. Recd--Ol,, moi oh, no!
Mr.. Ashton-June, July, anl August-thseo
terms; this tseptcmDer) Is tue fourth. / lnako
the motion for two rrasons.
Mr.. Recd-Do you nuke II n10nca
Mr.. Ashton replied III tl,e affirmative. His
first reason was that tho law entitled him toa
discharge. This statute, As he reul IL, was pr
emptury. The Court Ind III discretion. lfo
nothing to defer trial. The other rcason W.,
because he knew there was not particle u
lcgul evidence atldllee1 agailst lin, us lle hal
ali abstract of NIL tho testimony takrn bcforo .hs
Grand Jury in tue casu.
The Court-Ee ca.,llut 70 Into TINT.
Ar. Ashton knew 1t. Hu merely stated tint
as rcason, not with Wow Ut influencing tho
Court. HI would .cndenyor tu show ut tho
proper tlHlo tint the Indictment was u COD.
es Ts Ds 81 sas %t.orey sS va. I not f ~ au @
fle {Reed1 so fur ns Mr.. Ashton knew, bal
acted impArtially and fairly and diligently, and
llau done all TINT wus required Of hiA. But
the Legislature llal .uale thu laws f6r tho bcne.
benefit at tlie lauls oi tho Court.
Mn. REED,
in reply, Bald tho statute did not apply to Tho
case. Tho Indictment was returned olI the Isl
and the case could not have bcen tried Il
that term. Tho record showed tllat on tho 2dth
Of June, nutton VAS A,ade to quash
tl,e Indictment by all tI,s defendants,
Ashton included. h., except Kimberly, WHO
not passed upon until The It'll Of July. 1t Va.
tile defunGlant'B own motion. That tIis5losel u
the June term. Then tho record showed that,
OH the 7tt OF July. tho motion to .quash Wa
a X aspasea gsn @ n I'd s os s 5
term, unless thu defendants bud nnale molten
l,ad. Tho statute, therefore, II IL had any up
plicat!on to the eakot could only eonl1ncilcc at
tile dcfen1ant's motion. As Ills 110nor knew,
there was no jury at tho August term. Mr.
SWEET, for Ashton. came In at thu July term and
demanded triul, aud the Court told htm
something they had never hal. Inc Grand
Jury which sat la August lust year WIS the trst
one III TINT month for fourteen years. ue
therefore aubmitteu, X tho ease was nut tried
1t this term and the defendants did not con.
tinus It, perhaps til" motion would bo good at
tho octo6er term. liz, however. was mot suro
whether 1t would be or not. IL seemed 10 him
July ought to be- excluded: 4 1t was. the pres
ent ter!! was tho second; II not, It was tue
tagu Of the statute 1t WIS his duty to have como
tL ut tho August term anti moved for trial:
under nuy aspect, the September term could
only be considered the third term sincu the H.
ltctment was returned Into Court.
The Court-Aru there uuy decisions of OIL
courts on thIs sMbtecti
Mr.. Asht0n-No, Btr.
Mr.. Iteed remarked that tho statute didn't
say II the case was not tried 1t should be dis.
missed. It stated that In case the purity Was
In Jail he should 'bc act at liberty. =,
blr. Ashton did nut think tho States At;
torney had very much faith III his {Ashton's
argument. It was inln1atcr1al whether tdcro
" as sa1 1aFy yatab, T. AEa Sy ot a t hsrsae tx!
did not provide for vacations, but II a purity Wv
on bail, altl was not tried on or before tue scc-
ond term, he should be discharged.
Afr. Keed-TAat ls II le is III ig!l.
mcnt was found at tho May term. A. motion
was made at tho June term to 4uas!l, and it wss
ogerrulc1 by Judge Moore. At the July term
that motion was ronewcd, and judge ltogcst
asked for q trial. Whether tie Clerk eutered It
OF record or not Is immaterlal, Tic Court Wss
bound 70 take notice Of Tie August term,
whether there was vacation or not. A "a"
could not By suspended for d month and theo
since the Indictment WAS found.
the Coart-6upposu man Is not arrested
A. a Ashten-Tbo I, ss', Court has no jurisdiction
Mr: Rced-Dll not your motion to quasi, Ii
effect. secure contlmiance1
hlf. Ashton--No, because the prosecuting ~
torney could have had that motion dlsposed, g, o.
charge, feeling, and sbellcylng, aud knowlng, !
aln entlt!cd to It. | nln willing to t2ke taa
chances Ia tho suprenie Court II 1t bceonfs
necessary.