Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-05-07

.
out Of the way. Nothing, however,
was brought 10 light TO demonstrate
this In any way. When Mr.. Rawlina
got through, Judge Henderson took the
witness in band and subjected him 10
a rigid fire OF question:, In when the
name Of Henry Donovan a defendant
In the criminal proceedings, oonspicu'
ously figured.
Glenn Miller next tool. the witness.
stand. He wac clerk Of the February
grand jury Of this court, before whom
came the case Of Jackson Bolton. The
papers In the case were handed to him
by the district attorney, with DINERS
These papers (producei) comprised tue
original complaint against Bolton, the
warrant ior bis arrest, and the sub
IUna Of witnesses. He received no
papers In the case Of Groves. When
the grand Jury bad finished with tue
papers they were turned over TO the
court.
70 Mr.. Rawllns, the witness stated
that Mr.. Stephens weEt before the
grand Jury md said that Bolton had
asked the privilege Of testify ing there
In his own behalf, and remarked that
they were ut liberty TO hear him, "
they 30 desired. That was the sub
stance oi all he said, and he had made
the same statement In other cascH be-
sides that OF Bolton--thnt they could
hear witnesses IN behalf u the accused
persons. Mr.. Riley (the Attorney
went before the grand Jury on ore
occasion, before they organized,
ana said they had no right
10 take the Bolton case up,
that " was then In the
United states commissioners court,
and that "thc other side" were
trying 10 "cnrTy II over tho heads OF
the grand Jury" further, hat there was
n scheme, or Mot, on foot " Illustrate
Tor something Of that kind the rightful
counc Of events. Mr.. Riley talked
"very vehrmently" while referring
OF rhe Bolton matter. Witness told
him the grand jury had a right 70 take
up any cnsc they cared 10, and that
they knew nothing OF any ease In the
court below; that they had the papers
before them aud proposed to investi.
gate II. Witness protested against
lawyers "bulldo1ing" the grand jury
Ia that way.
Judge Zane-Th-n why didn't you
come to the court? Had you not been
Nhhh Ibh bAhFN NV efaNT Wy
one to talk 10 you, except n witnesses,
In the grand Jury roomg
Witu,ss-Y Yes, and that IL why !
rotested against II. Witness went on
further TO say that Judge Wampler also
went before the grand Jury, gave his
view OF the case, and stated what In his
Judgment were The whole facts.
Judge Zane-Was the grand Jury In
regular session them
'Witness-Ncg.
Mir. Rawlins-was Judge wampler
ever tubpmpsed TO appear before the
grand Jury.
wltnesI-Not that | am aware OF,
and was surprised to find him there.
EDGAR Z. Scar, another member OF
the February grand jury, said he did
not remember to have seen any papers
but the complaint In the Bolton case.
Judge Beattle-l think that Is all
the evidence We have TO present.
The other side then opened up.
District Attorney NRrinn flfs, went
upon the stand anu said he had no re-
collection whatever OF having had the
papers given into his possession.
He either did not take them
from tho District Court clerks
office or they had been miHlaid.
IL he did receive them he might have
carried them over TO bis ofiice Just rs
he would any other package given
him. Papers were not very often
handed TO him In this way out OF the
clerks oilic,; It was quite the excep.
ton. The statement made by Mr.
Stephens to the grand jury was an
ordinary proceeding.
10 Judge Besttie, witness said he
had never looked Mt the papers and
did not know where they were now.
Papers concerning matters for the
grand jury usually went into MIR.
stephens Office, but no was confident
that he did not give these particular
papers h Mr.. Stephens.
Assistant District Attorney Stephens
next testified. He said he had no
know ledge OF ever having seen these
papers at all. lie mentioned the plan
adopted in regard TO docum enis 10 20
before the grand jury, and said had
these papers come to him in the usual
way he would know something about
them now. He had absolutely no
recollection Of having received the
deed or other papers from Mr.. Narian
or anyone else. lie did 20 into Mr.
Riley's office TO discuss the Bolton
case, as Mr.. Riley thought n Ger.
tain fraud had been perpetratsd
(which witness explained In detail
Witness had no papers with him In
reference 10 the case at that time, and
had no interest whatever In tho de.
PENDANT Bolton. He simply had a
"noduing acquaintance" with him on
the street. Witness told the jury n
they thought proper to hear Bottoms
statement in the interest OF Justice
they had that privilege, aud iu this
case he did not depart IRON the utual
rule. Even Mr.. Riley himself In
some cases, had requested him to allow
defendants TO 20 before the grand
Jury aud give testimony In their own
behalf. After the grand Jury had
ignored the charge against Bolton
Judge Wampler inslnuated that II was
due to witness interference, aud he
naturally felt very much incensed, be.
ing entirely innocent OF such a charge.
Witness did nothing to influence the
grand jury In any way whatever, and
was willing that every member OF that
body should he called ON that point.
+. To Judge Besttie, Mr.. Stephens said
hs heard Of the existence OF these
deeds at the time II was charged that
MFR. Woods had been deffauded, but h.
had no recollection that II became
material to his mind that the paper,
should 40 before the grand Jury In The
Bolton Investigation.
Mr.. Stephens had left the wItnes,
stand but returned. lie said Mr.
Riley had remarked 10 him In thi,