Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-14

executive iofCu, Dr TO the superior Uili'
GERS; whore there are violations of law
with the connivancu aud consent Of
the superior oil Hcrs OF the law In tn,
city OF the county ~ the case may he,
whom shall We reach, what can We
reach2
Tho Court-well, I turn 10 the law
on the subject. the court here read
from the act OF Congress OF June -,
1854; also from Compiled Laws Of
| Utah.l
IL Is made the duty, you will see by
this section, not only Of other officers,
but police Dtilcers, to INFORM again s.
aud diligently prosecute persons whom
| they have reasonable cause To believe
are offenders against the provisions of
\ this act prohibiting gaming. Now, II
any rJlice officer or other officer, mo-
| difference who he H.. has any reason &.
| nhie cause 10 believe that ans person
| has committed an ononse against this
! law prohibiting gaming, aud he doe.
not diligently inquire into H. he IN
/ guilty VI violation " the law, ami
IL guilty OF u misdcmeanor. III any
| policeman gOcs into gambling house
and sees men gambling there, and hc
/ doe. not have u Investigated aud
| prosecute them, Uf do the best he can
toward that end, he L. guilty u mis-.
demonnoE he h. n criminal, and he
/ ought 10 be punished more severely,
really, than some men who may BE-
inveiglcd into the gambling house aud
commencct0 gamble. Public officers
who knowingly violate the law should
be rigiily dealt with aud punished, no
difference who they are.
Mr.. Bp1loy-S subordinate M well NJ
superior oiiicer9
The Court-Allof them, subordinate
nud superior. A superior OIL cur ha =
no right 10 license fuhofdinatsa Ia com.
init crime Are there any further IN.
.ituctions you wish Ou this natter
(No response
There was u question asked this
morning with rtrptCl ~ the evidence
rclaiiug TO forgery.
Mr.. Devlnc-t would Hike u make
one further remark ON tnis, your
honor. | DONE know that you exactly
undcrstoOd mo when stated rny posi-.
ton on u before, OF the position "
SOME u the JUROR, rather, that h, as to
Tue proprietor VI n certain place. 4
wliucs. Will testify that he believes -,
when any man listening 10 that witness
knows that he knows -, or that he
understands that Mr.. S1.and So IN the
proprietor, lac knows him 10 be- the re-
putcd Proprietor. Now, whether that
Is material evidence, without that wit.
n.rs p1sltively iestiiying That he
knows Il o. hH the ease. As one wit.
ntss whom We had before ~ stated that
he didn't know nnythlng-hr didn't
know anything except ~ he saw II; he
didn't know that Mr.. Auefbach Kept
THIS store " Auefbach Brothers, and
similar eases u the Kind. or course We
don't know those things, any OF ".
Nov, a. 10 tie rcputVd Proprietor Of
place. u That evidence sufficient n cou.
Wet n certain man M the proprietor "
certain place Il the point that |
would be- pleased 10 have the Jury
thoroughly understand.
The Court--Thc question l. ~ 10
whether you have fight 10 receive
evidence " general reputation ~ 10
whB keeps the house?
Mr.. Devine-l,s, sir.
The Court--who conducts tn. bu-i.
mes. A. stated before, while gen.
eral reputation is competent evidence
where pvrson IL Indicted Tor Keeping
house Of ill'fame, or keeping dis.
orderly house, under this statute In
reference TO gambling do not suppose
,,,i'i,',',' 'l'''t's" "uu'u "o Competent
s,,,.,, -. ,shl, n l
the facts from which he infer- that the
man conducts tho gambling house, not
To allow him 10 draw differences; bn I
fc,. NJ, hiu ~ n'"' 40 the
800 WY ~ ullhhH 30 hhu u thc
g. , ~, ",'''', ~ u'se. us plnioh
-, ''.,t,"m. .NIuehgo 70 20 before
~, W.! ,h'n you hAHe hiht To
a ,i',i;, w" V ,,,,, up'u u" ou nave
vy,, &C. ,,,aS'i,,' W., eNlu'hce oi
ina ih.n, snd III, =" v'u ..,.,s
H., a. ,,n,,,i,ii,,', '. ,i,, " Sou tlluh
nn1 ,.,Yo,in,' ~ ''',s w'' 1850, nnl ~.
~ ~, I'' s W ,'i.u ,' hllu oNh'. what
s an, ~, w t H,iaN. III yoH' uu'y 70 ek-
"',i'" i ''''"i oa'''ui'y'
WIN respect u the evidence a. 10 |
forgery, understand that the difficulty |
you hal was as TO whether the testi- !
mlny ot experts could he received.
Mr' Devine-Thst was the question. !
The Coutt-If you have the hand. |
writing NJ a man whose condtiet Won |
are investigating before YOU. which, hc |
admits TO he his handwriting. Won
would have "a right then 10 call In an
expert ana let him compare that with |
tue handwriting Ia dlsputo aud tx.
prets his opinioni hut you would not
nave right nierely 10 Investigate and
prov" his handwriting from other
paper than lhe one you have under
nlgfglN faF Tho ma |