New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-02-22
AFTER IVES AND STAYNER.
THE JUDGES CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY.
URGING THEM TO FIND AN INDIcrhhNf -
THE EVIDENCE WARRANTED IT-MYsIEh1

URGING THEM TO FIND AN INDlCIMHNA
THE EVIDENCE WARRANTED IT-MFsIAHA
.po,rr TIVE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE.
A Sensations augmented BY the needless mystery
thrown about the matter by some OF tho Instruct
Attorney's subordnates, was caused py pioVce"".e'
vosterday in the General Sessions ouliulhs lu'
formation was obtained some time ago that NO"
criminal proceedings were TO be msu'u,ei st,ss
Henry 6. Ives and George H. stayner. An attempt
was made over year ago TO indct them on charges
20 n,s.npropriating the funds of the Mineral Range
ronnanv but the charges wero dismissed eupsc-
nuent criminal proceedings in Cincinnati resulted III
thoir acoutal Since the accused brokers nave no0n
IN Ludlow street Jail civil suit 10 which tney
ave charged with having fraudulently obtained ana
used So $50 900 Of the property Of the Cincinnati a
rton and Dayton Railroad the opponents OF tho mem
hers of the firm of Henry S. Ives CO. nave rcpc"eu
their attacks They have submitted to DstrictA'-
torney Fellows of testimony, ana nave Sous"
30 obtain an Indictment on the facts prseh'eu
When the Grand Jury was assembled IN rart "a
the Court of General sessions yesterday "o"s'
Judge Cowing said to them
II would be well for you to remain IN SESSION ieN'
week There are matters when arc aIeauy Pnu-"
hefora Won 10 which deem IL necessary anu npVi'e'
that should call your especial ae'9huOn' tne ns
ATTORNEY has drawn my attention to one matter IN par
cnar which has already been is likely TO be before
Jndre Cowing then read Section b2s Of the Penal
Code. which defines the crime OF larceny. lie ueh
went on: - -
that certain persons In this county are anenape 70 TINS
law and have violated It in letter and spirit Ihe "a"
Itself is comprchcnsblc enough and broad enough IN us
terms as you will see, 10 cover ALMOST eNes
,oncevabla person who holds Aducary tPus and every
species Of personal property. The crime OF peach VI
trust need not state you, become pfeNaAene III
this county aud this State and no court or "f@u uf'
can lighuy or earelessly pass by such ehaiges "u'
m
We are fast regulating peaceful country with iugi'es
fyo stioe and IL not such persons 10 select their
homes or the time for their punishment am ereaoy
Informed that while action which was oeeuh III
another State proved aLortiYe, 1t was not setuu upo
It's merits on the contrary it was there question %
nurelv urisdlotiona character Taoty the courts OF
that State have thrown upon you grave responsibility
nv finding as matter Of fact, that crime had pom
committed It was within the Jurisdiction OF TINS county
That is ALL understand, which has been pssseu up0h "
smother State. -,
an, sure that vou gentlemen OF the Grand Jury, Will
not permit the good name this county or the admin
straon Of criminal justice TO suffer by any
of duty on your part Take this matter and cSfetu'y
investigate it. If find that this section mas psun
violated by any person person In this county you mus
find an Indictment II not you viii dismiss tne case
Judge Cowing then dismissed the Grand 'ufOls T"
their room They returned to the courtroom iaief
in the day and handed bundle of indictments 10
Clerk Hail.
The greatest mystery was preserved in the DISTRICT
Attorneys Office about the matter. Some OF the
minor officials went 70 the extent Of denying repeat
edly and pcrslstently that any indictment against
Ives and Sayner had been found had been ordered
by the Grand Jury. Denlas were also MADE OF the
existence of any bench warrants against the brokers
Other officials not connected with the DlSu1ctAItVr
neys Office felt less cran ana tSere ~ was no
positive denial Of the existence OF an indetnent nT
gfano arcThs s nb,r rg Is xpdonbey based On the
facts on which the civil suit Is founded