, 1881-02-20
CHANGE OF VENUE.
How the Statute Is Abused by
Counsel for Defendants.
4 scathing Review Of the Petition IN
the Case Of Dugan.

1,are Hawes Yesterday afternoon, IN tno
Criminal Court, decided the question or "netoer
or not he would grant William Dugan. 1no'c1eo
for robbery, a change Of venue. q le" oas7
aro the case was called for trial. It ~aA DC re-
rnrmhered, whcreupon the attorney OF the prs
onar Mr.. Trude, appeared and announced that
fho states Attorney hnd agreed that 1t shoula
ta nosscd for a few days Judge Ha~cs sa1a
that he knew nothing Of any such agreements
and refused to pass the case because tne WIZ
uesses for the people had been sitting arou"u
several days waiting for 1t TO be tr3co. ootno
nar)eytng followed between the Court and cotn-
sci, and u few hours later tho necessary alpuh-
wits we're tiled asking for change or venue gu
account of the prejudice Of his Honor WHICH,
wcre subscribed to By Daniel ki'ey ana ean,uol'
Doryan. The Judge did not regard the ahdaS'ts,
howeyer, as sufficient, and denied that he could
he nreiudiccd, because he had never before seen
the defendant. aud quite a colloquy followed rs
10 whcthefhe was legally bound to grant the
chuuge and. furthermore as to wnetnor Ut hoe
hr had n right to send for tho atf1ants ana eA-
nrn1ue them us to what tney had sworn 70. Inc Inc
result Of the dispute rr %as 1na1 noncea hat be
would tAke the legal quesuons .,n !usunGu ~ -
cpnsdera ton, and deliver his ulI1matun III ~
few days. Such IS the history OF tne cose Ill
brief. 7,,a,,o ,or,oure,
the proceedings in the case at lcnetn. aon no1,
! ureiudiced, uecause he had never seen me
prisoner nor heard OF him before ne came lnan
court for trinI. and that no reputapt1c pe1s" o"a
| would swear to the contrary, ana that aus ono
who would WIS unworthy OF telsel.
| From this rhe Court went on TO say:
| o,,,rcd If the prisoner it ne knew the parties
| n]aktug them or could give their addresses. tio
stated That be c,1ld not l made the same IT, II
stated in substance that hc did NOT know ,nuch na
! abnut them, but TINT they we're honest. hara-
! working men, aud that he 1ouno oue u 1nen1
| about tic County Building.
..Thc defendant In filing this petsuou witn tuese
af1idavits has complied with tho letter o. tnG
t statute, and am called upon bashg pefsonal 1ea
| Knowledge Of the fact that the material aileSa~
! mons Of buth the petition mud ah1daVit nIe
| false, to decide whether the deteudant Is cYaily
entitled to chnnEe ot venue or hm.st m" ae ,a,in
t should have granted it at once when tho petit
"our last Legislature attempted to amend Sec.
q Of the act reatlnx TO the cbange Of venue, on
| account of prejudice OF tho presiding Jua4e.
':This anendmen provides that when 5uSn na ap, p
| plic.tiou is mnde in Cook County. the Jnoee ~ 10
whom tho petition is presented shall cail u two
| other Judges and they three. after cons1aelins
the subject, shall decide whether the change q
csn,ninatiou Ut the statute ! was ut first In
Glued to think it could be held coust1tuuonnl
but upon more careful E. np;sHas aa.
that it cannot. The practice here provlaea @?
law is specinl to Cook County, and this prtvs'ol
does not apply to any other county IN the ola'e
The amendment. Think. is unconstitutional
and must in this case be disreRarded: N M aete..
| mining this Question must be gufded DE LIT
Statute as tt stood hefure tho amendment wa
passed. By Sec. II it is provided that wasn tnt
cause for change Of venue Is the pteJnu'eu; pJs;e,
| the Judre tho objection shall be accompanies
br xhe uffidayits OF two reputable persons resi-
dent Of the county. nnd not of kin or counsel Q
petitioner that they nefyo tt,onar tne ta p e
hive fair and impartial trial; nn'
therefore the Judge shall chance the venue =, T.
said cause. THIS section in terms, gives th
Judge no discretion in the matter. hut s.npl
says that upon compliance with tue statute u
shall change the yeaue. There would npt soe: !
INQUIRE Into the truth faisity of tho pet1tfo
or atIitlavits, or the causes which tnuuce1 tne e
spccrtye parties to make tue same. = @ 1n's ~ =
rion dues require the aitidnyts statl be made D.
| reputable persons but TINT the presiding JuoE
has any authority under the statute 10 ln9usr
MS 10 the character of tno aii1aa'lts, anu at,,,t
| bic deny the motion, is ut least doubtful ai
J not aware that our Supreme Court has drecti
limited examination that 1 have had time t
make since this petition WAS presented, ar
s:tisicd TINT the tendency Of the various dee!s s
change Of venue is n9alrst such authority,
| This was followed III the decision by lon
list Of authorities Touching the questions NJ Il
From the limited examination OF the au Y
thorittcs that l have bud time to make WI, I'II
! running the court, and III WEI" OF fnE lucl LII
] no specific authority is by' our statutes given
the presiding Judge to make examination Or II =
! | 0uiry as ia the truth Ut tho petitio
and atlldavlts tiled III cases Ike thi
am inclined to the opinion that 1t Is my dsll
| to grlnt Il change of venue IN this cnse' notwltt
, standing the fuct tlnlt know that have !
| prejudice whatsoever against the dctet1dat
buSun, and am fully convinced that these pr
; to prevent trial of the case At the time 1t vi
reached OH the regular CALL
The change Of venue vas granted 70 Juas
= = Dnruun, and tho case WAS set for hearing efArt
! !, ut 10 o'clock, and A1r. Trude WIS asked to I
); ready.