Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-12-27
The DISTRICT COURT.
Once Again The Utah Commission
Mandate Cases Go 0T3E
MRS. mULyASEY ASD VALENTINE.
Their Trial SGT for February tilhi
Explanation by Judge Bartch on
tic Bond Question.


tic Bond Question.
Both divisions OF tho Third district
court have boon In session today. In
Judge Bartch's department, a s1rl Of
political field.day had been promised,
the hearing upon tue writs Of mandate
i'tuei against the members Of the
Utah Commlgsi5n having been upv.
oially set down for this date. Con.
trafy 10 general expectation, however,
an agreement was entered into be-
tween counsel fgr the respective parties
as the result o. which further con.
tiuuanco was granted by tho court, Tot
one week. Thii LETT only the arralEI-
men, Of Mrs. Mulyausy nnd Charles
Valentine on the bill fsr today, and %
plea Of not guilty having been entered
On behalf Of these defendants and tue
date Of their trial cot, JUICE Barich
RdloutnCd until tomorrow morning.
Chiei Justice Merritt was kept busy
with motions, aud other mattere o.
more importance.
the MASDAMuB CASTS.
when Judge Barlch took bis seat on
the bench ut 10 O'Clock hu remarked
that this was the day ret for the hear
irg Of the mhndamus casos In which
the members OF tho the Utah Commits.
sion are defendants. What had counsel
TO say upon the natter
Attorney Ogden Hllrs replied
that In the matter OF tho np-
piltat.ou OF J. r.. Page for
writ VI mandate, as well M tho other
Chsra, IL had bouu agrcoI between
counsel that the hearing should b
postponed Tor Que week from today
untll January Ord, 1895, u agreeable 10
the court.
Judge BaTloh-i thinl, thoy can be
taken up ut that time. 1 u derslhnd
that you will then DO ready fOr hear.
ing In all the cases.
Attorney 4. l.. Williams nfBenlod,
observing that, ~ no understood, tho
principles Involved, anu tue facts,
were the same Ia each case,
A continuance was entered accord
ingly.
Tue chiei reason for tho present
posiponement was the absence Of Judge
Bennett from the city.
MRs. MULvANEY AND VALENTINE.
Mu. sadie MulyRnoy and Mr..
ChaflUs Valentine had their second
brief Interview with Associate Justice
lBhftch Immediately after the fore
going matter had been disposed on.
The former walked down from tho
| TemplstOn hotel with her custOdian.in.
| law, Deputy Marshal Al Dyer, and
waH given n seat In tho front row VI the
| Jury box after being guCioutly fe.
ceiycd by her attorney, L. h. Stephens.
| Valentine was brought from Mauhal
| Brlgham'e castle on the hill without
any show Of ceremony. lie rode
down In the peni;entiary wagon like
any ordinary prisoner CA route 10 the
court room, his only travelling u5m'
pnulOua being al ancient looking
driver aud Guard Calder. Neither VI
the defendants looked w uhurrial nl
when arinigned on the previous UCcs'
sion when they stood up side by sile
This time they were separated, Nulen
tine being with his attorney, John M
Zauc, at the other uni OF the room.
"Mrs. Mulyhuey Il here 10 enter her
plea TO these indiCtments," said AttOf
nty Stephens, by way Of leading of
the conversation. "5hc 10 now it
court and viii enter plea Of mol
guilty, with the privilege Of with
drawing or demurring hter"
District Attorney Judd l1Om0d up
wlth the response, delivered la no un-
certain tone OF voice; "Well, ~ 10,
court please, / do not want anJ
privilege Left. 4 want an issuB.D
Attorney Stephens--I have not seer
the indictments yet.
District Attorney Judd-Well, tn,
gentleman has had II week 10 look ut
them.
Mr.. Stephens walked up to Ia,
clefk'a desk, glAncsdl CuusoHly OvaI
tho indictments anu sAid-A plea o
not guilty may be entered In boil
cnseH.
District Attorney judd will nov
ask that both chnta DO set for hearing
on February 18th.
Attorney StephenS-I do not know
any reason why that would not bl
satisfactory; but | DO not consent.
District Attorney Judd--l do not Rsl
for any consent
Judge Bartch said the cases Nigh. b.
set for February 18th, as suggested
and then offered IA explanation In re
gard 10 tho question Of reducing th
deiendaups bonds which no though
ought 10 be made. When the indict
msnts were found and tho court wa
asked to fix the bond, IL was repre-
sentcd that the parties had tEkel
sll, 900 In money and other property
belonging 10 the complaining witness
10 the amount Of something over $50,
600, Tho court was then urged 10 ~
the bohd In tho sum OF $4,000 whioi
he himselL at tho time, thought tUl
| heavy, and unreasonable. But from
the fact OF H. being represented tina
the money might BIO put up aud tina
the defendants might yet across lhl
4 | line into Mexico, he yielded aud ii1e,
| the bond OF oacn NJ 10000 In the on,
! | case. In the other case the bond aske
! for was In quite large sum. Will,
. as TO the manner OF reducing
, | the bond in Chief Justice Merritt
, | court this court had nothing 10 say, ye
. he Thought under the STIMULATION it wa
, | entirely proper that Judge Merritt
4 should reduce tue bond. AZ this sam
lime. II was due 10 himself 10 max
this explanation M to why the bon
. was 40 high Ia the fret place,
I Attorney John NJ. Zane then ar0s
and. ON behalf OF Valentine, enleroI
a plea Of not guilty 10 both indici