Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-04-08
THE DEMURRER OyERRULED.
Ehe Court orders That Trescder be
Arraigncd Monday Morning
for Trial on the Charge
Of Bribery.

The demurrer in the case OF n. v.
Jones and Frank Treseder, indicted Tor
bribery, was argued before Judge Zane
this morning by Arthur Brown, Esq,
Treseder's attorney. The demurrer was
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 Grand
Young was present in court, but took
very little part in the proceedings, and
the worthy Nathaniel V. Jones himself
was an interested auditor, as well as a
dscomfitted 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 80 and l5l OF the
criminal procedure OF the Territory OF
Utah, statutes of 1873, page "a.
Second-That the facts stated do not
constitute public offensc.
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 MS 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 ii given to the
defendant.
Sixth-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 moi
state that the defendant or either OF them
knew that the said Edward A. Franks
was a deputy United States Marshal al
the date of the said payment OF money
set forth in the indictment.
| Eighth-Thc Indictment does not SCI
forth that the defendants or either o
them knew any OF the circumstances un
der which the offer OF payment OF money
to Edward A. Franks would become q
crime
Judge Zane delivered his opinion
shortly after the final arguments were
made, and it will not prove n surprise tC
anybody, we imagine, that that opinion
was adverse to the demurrer. The Court
held that there could be no question q:
to the fact that to have done what h,
was importuned to do and n.
an inducement for which he
was paid money would have
constituted violation of duty on the
part OF Deputy Marshal Franks. AS t.
the reading OF the indictment, it was evi
dent that Mr. Franks was approached as
a deputy marshal and that the money
was paid TO him as such officer, and that
besides the information respecting the
arrests or other processes which he him
self would have in hand, he was also
solicited to report all contemplated
actions of the kind by the Marshal and
his other deputies.
Mr.. Brown took exception to tn,
| opinion, and the Court was requested by
| Mr.. Dickson to issue an order requirin,
Treseder to appear for arraignment OF
Saturday morning. Attorney Brown de
INJURED to this and said: 81 think car
get him here by that time, but wouldn
like to have the bail forfeited, and would
therefore, rather it would be Monday, i
the Court please" Mr.. Dickson assenteC
to this and it was accordingly ordered
that Treseder be in court ready for ar
raignment at 10 o'clock Monday morn
ing.
Will he get thar?