Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1883-05-01

- -
The FIRST Days Proeeedangs IN th<
Jnsttce's Court.
Yesterday being the day cot for the tria
OF the persons who we're arrested last week
charged with disturbing the peace and
quiet in the n~eighborhood Of Secret Gan
yon' In riding n A. P. Hodgdon ON I
rail, the Justices Court was 1t a
early hour crowded with people. The
crowd soon became so great that. Il
the instance Of the District Attorney. thu
proceedings were removed 10 the large and
spacious room Of the District Court. When
1t is considered that fully 90 witnesses
n : multitude Of jurors were in attend
ance, besides the public interest that wa
ielt in the cases., the change could hardly
have been avoided.
Accordingly, after . short adjournment.
the Court convened ct l O'Clock In the
District Courtroom, and 8 few moments
after the opening Of the doors every avail
able space in the large room and the gal
ieTy was flled with spectators, jurors, wit
nesses and attorneys. Upon order being
called, the prosecuting witness, A. p.
Hodgdon, appeared with his attorneys, Dis.
trict Attorney CARRIER, and A. E. Cheney,
Esq, representing the firm Of Wren 4
Cheney.
The defendants, A. W. Atkinson, Pat.
Devlin, e. R. Dennison. Joel Dodge. Thos
Gilligan, George Hendes, James Mendea
and George Lapham, were in attendance,
and were represented by the following
counsel: Messrs. Lansing & Mitchell,
Messrs. Beatty 4 Fitzgerald, Alex. Wilson.
Esq., and Dave e. Baily. Esq.
Proceedings were commenced by District
Attorney CARRIER, who arose and stated
shat the ruling made by Justice Harmon
In the early part Of the forenoon, wherein
no ordered that the defendants b tried
separately, was premature, and quoting
the statute suggested that they be tried
jointly. Considerable argument ensned
between the attorneys IN both sides, which
finally ended in the Justice ruling that hs
would sustain his former order, and thai
the separate trials Of the defendants should
proceed.
The first case then called Wa that Of
A. W.. Atchinson, and q the names Of
jurors were being called, preparatory to the
i~mpaneling Of . jury. Counselors Beatty
and Fitzgerald arose and interpreted Z
challenge to the panel Of the jury on the
ground that there II NO provision in the
statute governing the practice which en-.
titles the Justice to form : jury in criminal
cases in the JUSTICES Court. This again
caused . lengthy argument. ~whereupon
the District Attorney stated that he had
been taken somewhat by surprise by the
question, and not being prepared to argue
it be moved that the case against Atchison
be dismissed, which the Justice proceeded
70 do, and discharged the defendant.
The next case called was that Of e. r.
Dennison. Mr.. CARRIER moved for = con.
t~inuance Of the case until tomorrow,
claiming that he desired TO study up the
question raised by counsel on the opposite
side in relation to the forming Of . jury,
and hoped that his request would be grant
cd. Great opposition was made TO this
continuance by Counselors Beatty and
Mite hell. who urged upon the Court the
Importance Of proceeding Immediately
with the trials, a. = large number Of wit
nesses were present. most Of whom were
employed at the Geddes mill and mine ct
Secret Canyon, and that It would entail :
hardship on them 10 come TO and 60 from
the scene Of the trial. After some relec-
ton Justice Harmon granted 3 continu-
anc until to-day Of IL o'clock. when the
second case on the calendar-that Of Den.
nison-will BE- called.