Arizona republican., 1893-06-04
DAVIS LUCK.
The Ending of the Grand
Larceny Case.
The Prisoner. Though
Guilty, Is Released.
The Result of a Series of Elk
traordinary Blunaers.
Judge GoodIng's Strange rorgetful'
ness Of a Well Known Constr
tutional Principle.

John Davis, who was colored team.
ster last all, was turned out of Jail yes
terday where he had lain for several
months under charge Of grand lar.
ceny, and the case against him was die
missed. although it is positively known
that he was guilty OF the crime charged.
The case is without parallel in Arizona
and few like it have been reported since
the constitution of the United States
was adopted.
A singular ruling by Judge Gooding
at the first trial of Davis last winter is
contributory to this curious, but una
voidable termination OF the case.
Davis will be remembered as the man
who stole $50 from bed in the Will
liams house while assisting in the re-
moval OF the furniture to another
house. The money belonged to Mrs.
Farley, who made the complaint which
caused his arrest. All of the money
but $40 was found in tin can in q
barn to which Davis had been seen TO
60 Immediately after leaving the room
from which the money was taken.
There was not shadow of doubt as to
his guilt and he was bound over to the
grand jury, where the series of blunders
most fortunate for him began.
The husband of Mrs. Farley as a wit
ness before the grand jury, believing
that the scriptural. oneness of two per-
sons married to each other held good in
all earthly affairs, testified that the
money stolen by DAVIS belonged to him
and the defendant was accordingly in
dicted.
At his trial Judge Early, who
had been appointed to defend him,
scored an unexpected point by showing
that the money taken was part Of the
proceeds of sale of real estate Of which
Farley owned one-eighth and his wife
seven-e ighths. He commended, there
fore, that If Davis had stolen the money
as charged, he could not have stolen
more than $40 belonging 20 Farley and
had not been indicted for stealing any
thing from Mrs. Farley and was not,
therefore, guilty of grand larceny as
charged IN the indictment. This con-
tention was sustained by Judge Good.
ing, who instructed the jury to find the
prisoner not enIlty.
Though the case had reached ter
mination, the judge strangely forgetful
of one of the most familiar principles OF
the constitution, forbiddlng the placing
of life Of liberty in jeopardy the second
time for the same offence, remanded
the prisoner for the consideration of an.
other grand jury.
The next time Davis was properly in
dicted, tried and convicted. When a
point as to the uneonstitutionality Of
the proceedings was raised yesterday
Judge Baker could not do otherwise
than recognize it and Davis was accord
ingly released.
Had Judge Gooding when his atten-
ton was called to the variance between
the proof and the Indictment, permitted
the case to go to the jury without in
structions and then set the verdict
aside, the matter would have been left
open for further hearing.
The only satisfaction which remains
to those who had an acute desire for
Davis punishment is a certainty that
his remarkable luck in this case will
induce him to commit another crime
which will be prosecuted on principles
coincident with the constitution of the
country.
If cool audacity is, az many parsons
believe, a prime factor in earthly cue.
cess, Davis may reasonably hope some
time to become President of the United
States or whatever else he chooses to be.
As soon as he was released from Jail
yesterday he went to the clerks office
and demanded the stolen money which
was found upon him when he was ar
rested. He didn't get il,