The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-02-20
HOW MANY VOTED?
The Legality of the Indictment of E.
0. Miller Under Discussion.
Miller's Attorneys Claim that Only
Ten Jurors Voted For Tt, Two
Less Than Required.

E. Q. Miller. who was indicted by the
late Grand Jury for subornation of
perjury in connection with the al
legged lieu land frauds, appeared
before Superior Judge Catlin yester-
day afternoon and his motion to set
aside the Indictment was formally pre-
scented by his attorneys, A. C. Freeman
of San Francisco and Grove l.. Johnson
of this city.
Deputy District Attorney Buckley was
present to represent the county, and the
members of the Grand Jury were present
as witnesses.
NOT AN INDICTMENT.
The attorneys for Miller explained that
the motion to set aside was based on the
alleged fact that Miller was virtually not
indicted at all-thata sufficient majority
OF the Grand Jury had not voted for the
Indictment, as required by law.
Deputy Buckley did not think this
could be shown, and the examination of
the Grand Jurors was proceeded with.
Attorney Johnson called O. A. Lovdal to
The stand and questioned him regarding
the finding of the Indictment. Mr.. Lovdal
SAID the investigation took place during
december last. He could not recollect
the exact date the indictment was agreed
upon, but he thought it was on a Thurs
day. On that day a vote was taken on the
matter and it was decided by vote of
thirteen to four to indict Miller. On the
following Monday the indictment was
presented to the court
Juror Gardner testified substantially
the same as Mr.. Lovdal regarding the
hnding of the Indictment on THURSDAY.
The District Attorney was then instructed
TO draw up the Indictment. On Monday
Mr.. Ryan informed the jury that he had
received telegram from Miller, in which
the latter asked that he be allowed to
testify before the Grand Jury before the
Indictment was presented. There was
discussion then among the Jurors as to
whether Miller should be heard or not,
and motion to reconsider the former
action OF the body was lost by vote of s
to 10. Then some of the jurors argued
tor delay, but as Judge Catlin had sent
them word that he was waiting for their
report others favored presenting the in
dlctment at once. A vote was finally
taken On the matter and it was decided
by vote OF 10 TO to present the indict-
ment at once and they did so.
MORE TESTIMONY.
Juror II. r. Crouch gave testimony
similar TO that of Mr.. Gardner, and so did
Jurors Heinrich and Steinman. The last
named, however, thought the vote on
which the indictment was found was
IL TO l. The vote TO reconsider though
was 10 to s, as had been testified to by the
others.
Juror A. j. Rhoads was not present
during either ofthe meetings and was ex-
cused. Juror Stein got somewhat mixed
and testified that according to his recoI-
lection the Indictment was found on
vote of 10 to IL. As there We're only nine
Inv Cpcyf oil
mony did not shed much light on the
case under consideration
+. X. Beckley was the last of the Grand
Jurymen examined. He said that when
the indictment came up for reconsidera-
ton Foreman Stevens informed the rest
of them that they could not take it I'D
again as it had gone out of their hands
and into the District Attorneys. The
Foreman said he had been so informed
by the court officers" On the Monday
in question the court sent to them several
times for the report. Both of the votes
taken on this day stood 10 to s.
ALLEGED ILLEGALITY.
Attorney Johnson argued that, laccord-
ing TO the evidence, it was plain that the
Grand Jury had not found legal indict-
ment. The law demanded that there
must be majority of twelve jurors out
Of the nineteen in order to find an indict-
ment. In this case the last vote taken bv
the Grand Jury stood 10 to S. The former
vote of Is to was not the vote which set
tied the matter. The Indictment was
taken up on vote to reconsider and il
was the vote that counted. 1t made no
difference, argued the attorney, if the
jury voted 5000 times on the matter the
last vote taken was the one that settled
the proposition. 1t was plain, he said.
that only ten of the Grand Jurors con-
Cured in the indictment-two less than
was required by law.
Mr.. Buckley argued that the indict-
ment was legally found. The Grand Jury
voted for it finally on the Thursday men
toned, and transferred the matter to the
District Attorney. The votes taken on
the Monday following were simply as to
whether or not the case should be re-
opened so as to hear Miller's statement.
and whether or not the presenting of the
Indictment i'll court should be DELAYED.
The vote on which the Indictment was
found stood thirteen to four, and this was
a legal vote. being majority Of more
than twelve.
Both sides quoted authorities, and the
matter was finally submitted.
The court was not prepared to render
decision just then, and took the case IN
der adViSement