The Arizona champion., 1884-10-25
persons; indictments being against

! son; 2 juries disagreed on indlct ment covering person, and jur, disagreed in each of the other in dlctments against the I person.
 So that during these two terms il each administration Hargrave con victed 9 men under indictments found during his term; Rush convicted 2S.
 During same periods the number o persons not tried and found not guilty, under Hargrave's adminis,ra tion, '; and under Rush's admins tratlon, :, and person escap?d through disagreeing juries.
 That is the record of the first yeal of each officer. In whose term dic the largest amount of criminal busi ness fall'
 Evidently Rush dld almost three times the amount of business tha Hargrave did in the first year, ano obtained more than three times tho number of convictions. Is it strange then, that his fees amounted to nor, than Hargrave's?
 In the special May term, 1882. un der Hargrave, there were found Ic in dictments, covering r. persons; in dlctment covering 5 persons-Prlntz low, Otto and Anderson. All per sons were convicted, and I, charged with murder on an indictment founC prior thereto, convicted of man slaughter.
 The corresponding term, under Rush, was the last term of court.
 Indictments found, B, covering 2: persons.
 Convictions had on indictments covering 9 persons.
 No convictions had on : indiCf ments, covering B persons.
 Dismissed by District Attorney, : indictments covering same B per sons.
 Continued for term, 3 indictment' covering 5 persons.
 Here IS where there is an effor made to show that Rush has worked his office for his private ends. Bu let us see:
 Three of the indictments arc join indictments against Smithson, Chris tian and Smithson, for cattle stealing -one for stealing cattle of one Cros 1 by, one for stealing the cattle Of one Stuart, one for stealing cattle of one Rogers and others unknown.
 The facts are that these three mer went out on the range near Lee! Ferry, and rounded up, drove off ane sold B head of cattle belonging tc parties named and others unknown he defendants admitted on the tria of the Crosby casc--thc only trial be ing tried as test case-that they hac taken the cattle from the range, sold them, and becoming frightened before they had received pay for them fled the country, but claimed that they be lieved the cattle to be abandoned when they gathered them. Crosby swore to his cattle and that they were not abandoned. The residents ir the vicinity of the range swore the cattle were not abandoned. The de fendants swore that they thought they were abandoned. One or two mer who had been few days in a camI beyond the Buckskin mountains swore that they had heard that there were abandoned cattle down in thai neighborhood. The jury, on those facts, found that the accused Mengh they were abandoned and found them not guilty. Rush, after such a yer. dict, thought it useless to prosecute the other two indictments, and dis missed them. Rush's bill shows tha he charged for but one trial of these three men.
 The next cases of importance arc the Tewksberry cases. Let us look at those cases. There were four in dictments, as follows:
 One against E, Tewksberry, Johr Tewksberry. James Tewksberry, Geo Blaine, w. Richard and H. H. Blsh op for stealing cattle belonging tc Mir. Stinson: one against the same parties for stealing cattle belonging to the Graham boys; one against Ec and James Tewksberry for stealing cattle from Stinson; one against las Tewksberry and Richards for stealing a steer belonging to Stinson.
 Now for the facts:
 John Graham and Thomas Graham came before the Grand Jury and swore