Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-04-08
THE DEMURRER OyERRULED.
The Court Orders That Treseder be
Arraigned Monday Morning
for Trial on the Charge
of Bribery.

The demurrer in the case of N. V
Jones and Frank Treseder, indicted TO
bribery, was argued before Judge Fan
this morning by Arthur Brown, Esq.
Treseder's attorney. The demurrer wa
brought up really in Treseder's exclusive
behalf, but the fact of his being impli
Gated with Jones made the results apply
with force to both individuals. LIE Crane
Young was present in court, but took
very little part in the proceedings, and
the worthy Nathaniel " Jones himself
was an interested auditor, as well as a
discomfitted one, before the case was dis
posed Of. The grounds upon which the
demurrer was made are generally looked
upon as exceedingly fragile. and are as
follows:
First-That the same (the complaint)
does not conform substantially to the re-
quirements of section $50 and Isl of the
criminal procedure of the Territory of
Utah, statutes of 1878, page "a.
Secondhand the facts stated do not
constitute public offense
Third-That the indictment does not
set forth any duty which would be VIC
lated or could be violated by the said
Edward A. Franks, named in the indict-
ment, by revealing to the said defendant,
or informing the said defendant when
any arrests or what arrests would be
made by the United States Marshal or
any of his deputies.
Fourth-Said Indictment does not set
forth any act which the said defendant
attempted to procure of the said Edward
A. Franks in violation of his lawful duty,
or any act which the said plaintiff was to
omit to do in violation of his lawful duty.
Fifth-Said Indictment does not state
what the lawful duty of said Edward A.
Franks was as a deputy United States
Marshal, or otherwise; and does not
explain why and how the information
mentioned in the indictment would be
in violation Of his duty if given to the
defendant.
SlXth-The act complained of to-wit
Giving information to defendant of in
tended arrests was not in violation of any |
duty of deputy United States Marshal. |
Seventh-The indictment does not
state that the defendant or either of them
knew that the said Edward A. Franks
was deputy United States Marshal at
the date of the said payment OF money
set forth in the Indictment.
Elghth-The Indictment does not set
.orth that the defendants or either of
hem knew any of the circumstances I'M
Ter which the offer of payment of money
% Edward A. Franks would become
rhine. ~
Judge Zane delivered his opinion
shortly after the final arguments were
made, and it will not prove surprise to
we imagine, that that opinion
was adverse to the demurrer. The Court
leld that there could be no question as
o the fact that to have done what he .
vas importuned to do and as
IN inducement for which he
vas paid money would have =
onstituted a violation of duty on the y,
art of Deputy Marshal Franks. As to :
he reading of the Indictment, it was evil :
ent that Mr.. Franks was approached as 6
deputy marshal and that the money =
'as paid to him as such officer, and that !,
esldes the information respecting the
rrests OF other processes which he him {;
elf would have in hand, he was also !
ollclted to report all contemplated !
etions OF the kind by the Marshal and :
is other deputies. =
MIR. Brown took exception to the !,
pinion, and the Court was requested bv !,
r. DICKSON to issue an order requiring :;
reseder to appear for arraignment on u
lturday morning. Attorney Brown de- =
urred to this and said ~ think can - -
It him here by that time, but wouldn't q =.
re to have the bail forfeited, and would a
erefore, rather it would be Monday, if y;
e Court please" Mr.. Dickson assented :,
this and it was accordingly ordered - -
at Treseder be in court ready for ar J.,
lgnment at 10 o'clock Monday morn Il
G.
Will he get thar?