The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1878-03-29
THE TRIAL OF E.P. BANCROFT.
In the Lyon County DIstrIct COur {,
Judge PeytOn Presiding.


Trial began Thursday, March 21st,
Judge Peyton preading. Gillett & Forde,
and Attorney General Davis, and j. II.
Crichton for prosecution, Ruggles, Scott
& Lynn. and Ross Burns Of Topeka, for
the defense. The defense offered bail in
bonds signed by different parties for Vari-
Gus amounts, nggregating the sum of
$4,000. The prosecution objected to any
such bail, on the ground that it was I'M
usual aud without precedent. and would
cause the State too many different suits If
the bonds were forfeited, and raise other
serious questions. The court refused to
accept such bail, and held the defendant
TO bail in the sum of $4,000. The infor-
mation comprised three counts,and the de-
Tense filed q motion to compel the State to
select upon which count il would try the
defendant. Arguments continued for
day and a-half. Mr.. Gillett, representing
the STATE, said that he did not object TO the
secOndcount being ruled out, as the evil
denCe for the State would be offered under
the first and third counts The court re-
quired the State to choose between its
first and second counts, and the State
chose 10 prosecute on the first and third
counts. The defense then filed a motion
to quash the third, on the ground that
the Information did not contain state
ment Of facts sufficient to constitute a
public offence, because first, that the
State war not corporation within the
meaning of the embezzIement law of
1873; second, that the word money did
not occur In that law, and that legally
the defendant could not embezzle any
thing bat moneys third, that when Ban
croft was appointed agent he was ap-
pointed by q board Of directors, and that
before the alleged emmezzlement the leg
islature abolished the board OF directors
and created q board OF regents, and that
his agency was abolished along with the
board of directors, and that he could not
| therefore act as agent after that; fourth,
that Bancroft had An undivided interest
| in the proceeds OF the sale Of the lands,
to the extent Of 8 per cent for his com
mission and that an agent whU b ad an
undivided interest in q fund could not be
legally guilty Of embezzlement Of either
3 part or whole Of such fund. Argu-
ment on these points followed for a day
and a-half, and on Tuesday Judge Peyton
1
| to Quash
The prosecution then asked for the trial to
proceed, but the defense interposed "plea
OF abatemens"-to quash the trial on the
ground that the defendant had not had the
| necessary preliminary examination before a
magistrate ON the offences as they were
charged In the amended indictment, and de-
manded a jury trial to determine If he had
had the necessary preliminary examination
A jury was empanneled from the tailsmen
/ and others in or convenient to the court
house, and the issues raised by the plea in
abatement were tried, and the case submit
ted to the jury Wednesday evening. The
court closed its instl uctiOns by telling the ju-
ry that its plain duty was to fad for the State.
Yet some one or more OF the 'Ahonest and in
tel1igent'' twelve, compelled the jury to stay
out all night before agreeing to q verdict that
the defendant had had q preliminary exami-
natson. The Jury came in this Thursday
morning. with the verdict that preliminary
IexaminatiOn had been held.
II. The. defense then moved for a new trial,
which motion the court overrnled, and then
announced that as but two days of the pres
emit term were lefth would adjourn the case
over until the September term, the defendant
to remain in jail unless satisfactory bail was
furnished.
While we know that the people throughout
the State are watching this case with deep
interest. and that they will be disappointed
, with the very slight results so far secured.
we can say that Judge Peyton's course dur
, ing the progress Of the case has been emil
nentiy fair, hrm, and faithful to his judicial
duty. His decision Tuesday, overruIing the
, motion to quash, was very clear and able,
, and evinced a profound understanding Of the
law So far as he is concerned the rights OF
the people have not been prejudiced, and We
presume an adjournment until the September
term has become unavoidable. Gllett q
FOrde have performed their duties as prose
cutting attorneys ably and faithfully.
The people viii not. however, lose their in.
, terest In the case, and while they may have
little knowledge of legal technicaIities, they
have = keen appreciation OF equity and jus
; sice, and they viii never eounternanoe any
= Interpretation Of law that viii justify tn.
robbery Of the school fund, directly or indi
reotly, by any party whatever. They canno
afford 70 be Indifferent to so important mat
ter, and they will look 70 the Septembe
!, term for fun, thorough trial Of this case
I and verdict by twelve honest, intelligen
4 considerations men, either acqEiting or con
3 Victing the defendant, and settling the
= legal points raised 50 that IL the Presen
d statutes are in adequate to protect the pub
: lie treasury that the Legislature may know /
= and amend them 50 that viii be eRectual
We desire to say now, and say it emphetical
~, that whoever Is accused Of robbing IN
!. Normal school or any other school or Pabli
I, fund. shouitl have prompt, fair. impartial
= thorough trial. and wheever Is foand guilt
= ct snck crime should hsys the due penaIt
iefthe law meted cut 20 HIN. That Is pre-
eIeely ahat tie people believe. and VIA
Z their lnserezls ee.nands and if IS lhe pias
2 duty - .seDlie ls4l.lsse - a. q 81 pet1Ie 81