The Arizona champion., 1884-10-25

changed to a T. George Blaine was then called before the Grand Jury md testified that he had bought the cattle from a man who called himseil Johnson, but no one in the whole ol l'onto Basin had ever heard of or ,een such man with cattle for sale. ,r with cattle at all, either before oI lnce such purchase. It was all tht explanation offered. On these facts the Grand Jury found the indict- ments.
 On the trial, the same evidence went before tGe trial jury and so far as the prosecution was concerned, d case was made, strong and clear, and which would unQuestionably warrant a conviction. The defense, however, introduced five or six witnesses foT whom they had sent after the indict ments were found and at the sugges- ton of defendants, who testified that neither John nor Thomas Graham were anywhere in Tonto Basin on November 2I, 1882. Of course this was kept quiet and sprung suddenly. The Judge, then, instructed the jury very succinctly and shortly, as fol. lows: eff you believe the Grahams, find the defendants guilty; if you do not believe the Grahams find the de fendants not guilty" The jury re- turned verdict of not guilty. Under the order of the court and of its own motion a special Grand Jury was em- panelled and found indictments against the Graham boys for perjury. Was Rush to blame because two men had travelled two hundred miles and committed perjury9
 That makes nine out of thirteen persons who were acquitted. The other four were Gaines, Wilson, Scott and Cook.
 The indictment against Gaines was found in Rush's absence from the Grand Jury room. When it was | brought on for trial and such men as John Dickson and William Rudy swore on part of the prosecution that they helped drive the COW away and thought it belonged to Gaines, Rush, taken thoroughly by surprise, in jus tice to Mir. Gaines, asked the court to instruct the jury to find him not guilty.
 These are the facts of these cases, plainly stated.
 Now, let us look at the manner ot the two officers in their fee bills. A, the November term, 1881, Hall and Mcbride were indicted, jointly, in one indictment. Capt. Hargrave's bill for that term shows a charge as though an indictment had been drawn separately against each man, making $40 Tor the indictment. In the May term, 1882, Printzlow, Otto and An. derson were indicted jointly under one indictment. MT. Hargrave charges as for three indictments, S6o. The parties plead guilty and the Captain charges for three convictions, SIPS.
 In the November term, 1882, Rich, Bronkite, Mullen and Bismark were jointly in dicted under one indictment Captain Hargrave charged for four $50. They were tried jointly ano found not guilty under the indict ment. Captain Hargrave charges fol the trial of each, Slo.
 Killiland, Worth and Richey were jointly indicted in three indictments Captain Hargravc charges for nine in. dictments, sISo. They plead guilt, to one in dictment and were not triec on the others. Under the plea the Captain charges for three convic tions, sI5o.
 Alvorados and Gonzales were in. dicted jointly in one indictment Capt. Hargrave charges for two, $40, ard two convictions, sIoo.
 Rich, Bronkite and Bsmark were indicted jointly under one indict ment. C. ptain Hargrave charges for three, S6o, and two convictions and one acquittal, $40.
 Now, let us look at the cases in Rush's bills:
 In the Christian, Smithson and Smithson cases there were three joint indictments. Under the precedent established by Captain Hargrave, Rush was entitled to charge for nine indictments, SI8o. He charges for three, s6o.
 In the Tewksberry cases there were two joint indictments against six men