Telegram-herald., 1889-10-01
cos SsPIRAToRs FREE.


u Dss4aissed Fro-a Csart.
Jadze e1Elagaae yssseEt4y cis
10 .sed tns ease aga ast 4 A.. A@tler.
Wa IL car.tl 21d Walter 3. sae-
para. eaargea S.tA consp raeY' b. ce-
fraud 10 lzln.lns - Hor-l-ess Iateat
fglts lpon L. a. Nl1sCl .-.eeolE-a
.1g Sltness
Tee motic2 % d.snllss Vas made -
tne a-f lsants' attorney. \. 2. Al-ea.
ugon tne ground. fIst, that tie young
men aal l1g waved or been gwen al
exam. nation la taecourt oelogi second
taat Jh0. information charged 10 of-
4easo under Iae lass of lle state. ald
lcr1. that 10 count l che .lroru.atl4
charged al Ottense unaer the laws.
IL Dee Ding Ihe ease TIE Judge sad
Having heretofore determined tle
rEst proposition o. the effect that "a
tlls case d partial examination bad
beeu had and further examination had
been R4lyed / u0w proreed g. deter
mile the second and snird propos tons.
That tie Information attempts 10
charge tH0 separate aad -Iuct OF
lenses 8l.ca are alleged o. have been
Comntr.d Ou different days The
court Is vi the opinion that the ltel-
ton vac % charge tie one crMls ~
c0lsp. facF ia tNO distinct counts So
Tat proofs, as they mlglt develop.
e0uA be- introduced % establish the
one act oL conspiracy and mat All that
could te asked 0r tlat would De- grant
ed, would De- 10 Glire an election Ot
counts up0n which respondents We're 10
be tried i indeed even that were re-
qu.red.
As % the third copnt-That neither
count ot tle information charges any
oitense known to the law, the court
holds that the Information Is "A good
and valid information for the Ohense
of conspiracy but the question now j.,
lt beng admitted that there Is no
stronger circumstances OF evidence
than appears IN the examination. and
therefore that the court has ali before
.t that jury could have, = there such
a case a would justify the submission
OF Il % Il luryy IL this were an OId.-
nary examination, where portion
only OF the evidence had been nitro
duced before the examining magistrate,
and other evidence WAS expected 20 hc
introduced, the court would not act
upon tins matter But all the evidence
substantially beng IN, the court has
taken the time carefully % sean the
evidence taken, and. while II appears
from such evidence that these respond
ents have pursued a course false and
dlsgracetui IN the extreme, still
from the evidence in this case
the court finds that the prom
lses made are - nearly an promises
As TO future or probable future
existing facts, that If they were 10 90 10
a jury the court must instruct them to
bring i'm a verdict of not guilty. For it
j. wcll-settled principle OF law that no
promise OF future action j. a basis for
false pretcnses. There must bc a pre-
tension based upon pretending existing
facts, such ~ cannot by the exercise of
reasonable diligence on the part of the
intended victim bc cOntradictcd. In
TINS case there seems To have been some
false statements of existing facts, still
! they were so false that the intended
victims, exercising ordinary prudence,
could have proven them false. 10 pal
pably false were they that several Of
the intended victims would not be de-
celved by them, and only those who
were so deceived, who were so blinded
by the hope of gam, that the transpar-
ency of the scheme was clOuded by
their own desires. The case Is 50 near
the line that lt has taken great care and
investigation ON the part ot the court
TO come 10 a conclusion. But from
that investigation the court Is satisfied
that the evidence I'M the case would not
Justify a verdict of guilty. and that the
court would 80 have 10 charge under
the law. The notion 10 dismiss the
case Is granted and the respondents
and their bail discharged"