The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-07-28

FOX FIVE YEARS.
The Heavy Punishment Melted Ont
TO Greenwell.


Ipied the bench. The spectators
be ches were only sPsrsely filled at the
c } uuencem, NJ; but before the session
b Il proceeded lar, the room was flled.
The case OF Greenwich was called. The
defendant was NOT present, but Mr.. Rog-
ers, one Of his couuSelors. went after
him, and not coming in at once. q
deputy was dispatched to look up the
defendant. lie soon produced him in
court, having met him near the door
Mr.. KimbAll, for the defense, asked
that the case be continued till O'Clock
to give counsel an opportunity 10 r,.yIew
tie reporters transcr. 20 of evidence, IL
having ou!y been received Yesterday
morning. The court. however, obi cted
- granting the continuance and the re-
quest was denied.
Mr.. kimball then entered a motion
for arrest OF judgment and a motion for
a new trial.
The tirst motion was made on the
ground that the Indictment does not
STATE iacts TO constitute public ofFsnse.
lie argued the point at considerable
length, citing q numOer of authorities in
support of the position. In addition TO
I
Was asked Tor on the grounds, that tue
evidence does not state that the Grand
Jury was duly in session at the time the
defendant gave the alleged false tes-
tlmOny before that body. The evidence
does not show that tnere were twelve
/ or more Jurors present at that session,
and that no trial was had be-
fore competent court. The defense took
the position that Judge Powers had no
authority TO request Judge Zane to pre-
side over the court in this district, cit
ing the Poland bill referring To- the
assignment OF justices by proclamation
OF tue Governor. also 10 the Utah stat
Ut :, session laws of 1884.
Mr.. Dickson took up the points made
| by the defense and replied 10 them sep
arately, citing authorities TO substanti-
ate the position U. the p osecutiOn. de
claimed that the Indictment was suffi-
Clent. He insisted that the evidence
showed that there had BEEN a due ses-
SION of the Grand Jury: that there
could have been no session except il
had been a due session at which twelve
or more grand jurors were present.
In relation 70 the incompetency Of
the court, he claimed that under the
statutes the J..dge of the First District |
had the power 10 invite Judge Zane to
preside over the case at bar.
Mr.. KImball closed III brief argu- |
meht.
The court denied the motions of the
defense in an elaborate verbal opinion, |
in which herevieTed the different points |
of objection.
The defendant being asleep the case
was continued until 2 O'Clock.
Judge Powers took the judgment seat 4
and asked for the report of the Grand /
d.
the hearing of the motions. The fore
man, Mr.. w. J Wood. handed a volu.
minOus report to the court. 1t was
read in open court by the judge.
The District Attorney was asked |
If he had any reason why the
jury should not be discharged
and the question was a-ked the mem
bers of the jury. The court then said
that one of the first of his Judicial acts
upon arriving IN this Territory was 10
charge Grand Jury and one OF the last
acts seemed TO be TO discharge q Grand
Jury. He then paid q euiogy TO tine
Grand Juries who have so manfully
performed their duties an the face of the
fact that they have been ,straciZed
among certain portion of the cOnmu-
nifty, aud had been marked a. victims
Of the hate OF some people. The judge
grew very pathetic aud It seemeJ that
ne spoke with great difficulty. He I'm
ally concluded by discharging the
Grand Jury.
Judge Zane. at pm, told the de-
fendant to stand up, and asked II he had
anything 10. say why s nJence should
not be passed. Mr.. Greenwell said he
had nothing more TO say than he had
said.
Were you advised TO say What you
= ~ - ]
court.
No, sir.
The court then asked Mr.. GreenweII
If he had 3 family, and was answered in
the sffirmatiye-he has q wife and one
child. After saving il looked strange
that the defendant SHOULD commit such
q crime, the court said that the penalty
for the Offense was punishable by i'm
IN the peniteutiAry for not
less than one nor more than ten years.
he then dilated upon the Nervousness
OF the ofieDse, and said that, as Mr..
Greenvell said there was no one
who influenced him IN this action
and there was no Dsilisting circum-
stances IN the case, 1t wss the duty Of
court 70 fix the sentence in sue q de-
gree that would make an example OF
him. He then sentenced him 10 3 term
of i've years in the Penitenuary and TO
pay the costs OF the prosecution. COun-
sci for the defense suggested tina costs
could not be taxed IN \ case OF felony,
and after q moments hesitation the
court ordered that part OF the sentence
10 De withdrawn. The court room was
soon almost emptied Of spectators. and
the court called the case Of the y. N. 5.
& c. Co. Us. johnson, s,nd allowed s
motion for new trial.
SIN the case Of Sidney Stevens =. the
r n. Bell Telephone Co. q notion Tor
new trial was denied.
In the matter of eonpla MT agsinst J Il
e. Graham, Of Provo, tie court was I
the opinion that il has power 10 piiAiShl'
for contempt in such ca =; bRtit hAy-
ing come 10 the knowledge u the court 1
that the rumors were IN circulation At
tbe time Of their publication, the pro-
ceedIngs were dismissed.
This seems 10 be case wherein thede-
PENDANT. editor and proprietor Of the 1