Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-09-25
JONES AND TRESEDER.
Separate Trials Denied the Defend
ants-The Demurrer in the Jones
Case 0yerruled.
A Hard Time Obtaining Jury-An
Open Yenire Issued for Twenty
More Jurors.
A Demurrer Filed In the Homer Dun
can Case-lIyrum ID. Folsom
Sentenced.


witnesses, lawyers and spectators, ant
great interest was shown in the celebrated
bribery case against Treseder and Jones
The first matter taken up was the call
ing of Homer Duncan to plead to the in
dictment upon which he was arraigned &
few days ago.
Mr.. Rawlins stated that Il demurrer
had been filed in this case on the ground
that the crime was not committed within
the district At the request of Mr.. Dick.
son, the argument upon the demurrer
was suspended Until Monday next.
Hyrum p. Folsom, who few days ago
pleaded guilty to a one count U C. indct-
ment, was then called.
| The court asked the defendant what
was his intention as to the future, i. o.
whether he intended to obey the law or
to 90 on in violation of it.
Defendant answered that he did not
wish to make any remarks about it, and
he was, therefore, sentenced to q term of
six months imprisonment in the Peniten-
tiary, and to pay q fine OF $500 and costs,
standing committed until the fine and
costs are paid.
JONES AND TRESEDER.
The case against Jones and Treseder
was then called. 1t will be remembered
that in January last these two defendants
offered to pay Deputy Franks 800 per
month, provided that he would inform
them OF all warrants in the hands of the
Marshal against persons charged with
polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, in
time to prevent their arrest. The case
created considerable of a sensation at the
time of the arrest of the parties, and the
trial has been awaited with great interest.
Mr.. Brown demanded separate trial
for his clients.
The demand was objected to by the
prosecution and was denied by the Court
Mr.. Brown, for the defense, then inter-
posed u general demurrer to the indict-
ment on several different grounds. the
principal ones Of which were that there
was nothing in the indictment to show
that the defendants were aware of the
fact that Mr. Franks was an officer of the
United States, and that there was no
intent shown on the part of the defend
ants.
Mr.. Brown began his argument upon
the demurrer by stating that he wished
to call particular attention to the subject
OF the knowledge of the defendants as to
what Office Franks held. The statute
makes crime of an attempt to bride an
officer with the intent to induce him to do
some act in violation of his official duty.
Mr.. Brown then went on to show that
in such cases it was the intent and not
the act which constituted the crime. He
then read the indictment, showing that
there was nothing in it to show that the
act had been committed knowingly. He
quoted several authorities to sustain his
position.
Mr.. Dickson stated that he had argued
at considerable length the demurrer in
the Treseder case, which was upon the
same grounds as the one now being con-
sidered, and he therefore did not care to
say anything on this question.
The Court stated that the demurrer
would be overruled. Exceptions taken
by the defense.
Mr.. Brown then asked for separate
trial for his Client within the discretion OF
the Court. The defense took an excep-
ton to the ruling.
The defendants, both OF whom had
been previously arraigned, were then
called upon for their pleas, and both
pleaded not guilty.
The jury was then called.
George Shell went down under chal-
lenge from the defense on the ground
that he had formed an unqualified opin-
ion, and Edward Berry was excused on
the ground that he was member of the
Grand Jury which indicted the defend
ants.
j. M. Harvey, Boman Cannon, II. w.
Crane and Wells Clark had all read the
particulars of the case at the time the
arrests were made and had formed I'M
qualified opinions, and were therefore
excused.
Joseph Foreman was challenged on the
ground that he was not a taxpayer. The
objection was overruled and an exception
was taken by the defense. Mr.. Foreman
was then excused on the ground that he
had formed an unqualified opinion.
5. @. Pancake had formed an unquali-
tied opinion and was excused, and James
went down on the same
ground.
Joseph Foster had formed a qualified
opinion. He stated that his opinion was
that the defendants were both guilty, and
the qualification to the opinion was a
slight belief that they possibly might be
proved innocent. 1t is needless to say
hat he was excused.
r. p. Martin, j. B. Wilson, and Albert
Fisher were excused upon the ground
hat they had all found unqualified opin-
ons.
Alfred Thompson had expressed pos
tive opinion, and was therefore excused.
E. M.Bynon had heard of the affair in !
every possible, way and believed them in |
he main, and had no doubt expressed |
IN opinion. He had been introduced to !
Mr.. Treseder. Had talked with Mr..
Franks about the case and was, there
ore, excused.
George Mullett had formed positive
opinion and was excused.
Louis Bamberger had formed pre- |
udice against one OF the parties and was
challenged by Mr.. Brown He stated to |
Sr. Dickson that he thought he could |
rive fair trial in this case. The |
was overruled.
Mr. Dusseldorf had formed a positive |
opinion and was excused.
An open venire was then issued for |
wenty jurors, returnable at 2 o'clock, |
md the Court then adjourned until that
lour
JURY OBTAINED.
At the afternoon session the examina-
ion of jurors from the open venire were
and after an hour and half of /
lard work the list was finally completed, |
md the jury stands as follows:
Thomas Davis, l.. Bamberger,
Charles Shields, NJ. s. Simmons,
Edward Berry, j. H.. Williams