Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-11-14
PROVO.
Proyo, Jam Nov u. 1894
Indictment SET Aside

the oJuft tina. DE han ttoH served win
some papers Ia tAe Calr Ot tue Unite 3
/ States VI Alma Hague, indicted Tor
making fslso entries ll the b oks OF
tue First National Bank Of Nophi,
while lac was cashier 10 that insti,u.
| lion.
one Of tue papers was q motion g.
compel the persecution TO elect which
count TO prosecute ui utea motion To-
set asile tue iudic.lueut; aud one a
demurrer 10 the Indictment. Mr.. JutI
said that the case was at issue aud set
tor ulai, uud hH via not uuIefstauu
nov these motions Rui demurrer could
come IN nov. &C q case was sst Tor
tfial last Monday bat wa not called
on accUuat " tne case not he
ing reached on the calendar. }
Judge Smith s.aiuI that b.
remembered very clearly, when Mr.
Hsgue pleaded, tne q utt allowed uls
attorneys 10 withdraw tho plna of not
gully, NJ a iututo timu, Tor the puf.
pose OF making tucu motion as they
desired.
Arthur Brown, attorney Tor de-.
icnjaui, explained that hs had IL 3
died the papers yet. lie had suDnit.
tod tue motions 10 the prosecuting Att1r-
nuy 70 that lac might bee acquainted
with their contents. Hc would nus
ask leave 10 Withdraw tue plea, q make
such motions NJ he Saw a..
Mr. Marshall, special counsel for the
United states, objected TO Withdrawing
tue plea now, TOT tue reason that No
Hague should have taken advantage
Of tie order of tue count before.
Prosecuting Attorney Juud called
attention 10 the fsut that Witnesses nal
been summoned for the government At
n great expense, about $1,000, aud he
collected 70 tue plea beiug Withdrawn
al this time.
Mf. Brown, In reply, stated tho
question wss not one ~ 81 900 " 500 d.
90 Expense g. the Uuitud State; uut
Que OF justice TO the United 5latv, ns
well M 10 the Defendant.
Ju igs SANTA allowed tbs plea 10 be
witudfawu, ~ hear tue moulin Of tho
counsel Tot dcleudaut. Mr Brown
met mOvUu 10 Hut aside the iudictmeui
f3f toe ruasOu that Joan w. P,Ro tie
court stou0gfaphsr hal teen permitted
10 tue giaud Jury room while tue case
wac b"iug Uuusiderr contrary ~ tho
statute, whi,h provides thst nOuu but
membvin oil tue gran jury, he district
>
aud Witnesses ehal ue present. Pa -.
cudng AttOruty judd clalmed that
tnu question ursugut up Ny the a.
ton was Que O uiscfetiJn by the Court,
aud tnat II should not DO considered
for the reason thst Mr Brown shvuiI
have made this mo ION ba uFs. IL
iuItueE mai tue clerk read an otltr
from tue court appointing Nh PIs
steuu gfsphcr Ot tue gr-ni anu pttu.
Jurie- ~ tho cases against Mr.. Hagu
Mf. Brown rtpIrd that tuu order
dld not Hppy 10 ,hr Nrphi tern II
court, whom this indie mrnt was iouud,
and argued thzt un4er tue statutes the
almiuslUn 60 tbs grald Jury room ui
Mr.. PIgu was al error.
Judge smith fomafsel that Prose.
tulEg Attorney Judi had acted under
tnu iustluctiln Of the attorney general
NJ Warrington auJ was not ~ blame.
Mi. Brown stated that u cue a!tJT-
uey general hal niAue such an OfIrf
ne WAS evidently ignOfaug Of or stat
utrs.
Az their was question As to whether |
Mf. PiEe hrd besI IN the grand Jury
room while testimony In this psricu.
lar case was being taken, tue ATgu
mtnts were Suspended IN order ~
nsrartain tnis iaul, ~ DO continued nj
$3.50 O'Clock. AZ tuHt sine the case
was again taken up. PrOsuCu lug A.
tutnty Judd stated that In order 20 get
himself right no wanted to say to the
court that no Jii not know Of any such |
arrangement, a. claimed by df. Brown
In regard 10 tue defendant having the |
right g. Withdraw his plea.
Judge Marshal said he had examined |
the testimony taken before tue gtand !
Jury, snd iuuuI that MIR. PiRs had Al.
pvated before the gram Jury M a
stenogTaphet
Thsttupon Judge Smith made the !
order 10 quath the Indictment, anu |
als0 ordered that the case be submitted |
10 the next grand jury.
MT. Brown thea gave notice that he |
would present. similar motion In the |
case ui tue United states Va Alma |
Hague, tz6lrmeut, and the PEOPLE |
vs.. Alma Hague, tmbrzzlemsnt. B5th |
VI these inuic. menls were fouuu In |
Nspni. Counsel for the prosecution
were not ready 10 srlus lhsse m Jtions;
they Will be heard some time this
week.
la the case Of the United States vs..
Alnua Hague, embezzIement, for |
which the Indictment Was found IA |
fruvJ last March no such motion will |
be made. That case In not set for tnal
This term,
Tue remainder OF the afternoon was
devoted 10 heatiug evidence Ia tue Gaze
VI l.. Levy Vi John A. Brown, sheriff,
st ai,which was argued ana submitted.
Following this oAsB WAS that Of
samuel Curtis VI tue h. q. w. Ry.
%. Piainuh, who Resides at salem,
Asks for $4,000 DANA es Tor iDjufits
sustained la Apnl, 1891. lie was a
passenger on tue dc eudant corpora.
iOn's train from Provo 10 spanish
Fora, anu ~ he attempted 10 leave the
iaiu anu step on the platform, Inc
rain started up ana threw plaintil 10
he gr0und, causing Nun 10 sustain
eveTe ipjurleH. Plniutll claims this
vas cauuud by oarolessne.s ON the mart
II the employees u the railroad Glm.
ANY. Tho Defendant corporation
lenles Any responsibility Tor the acol.
IeuL
OTHER BUsINrss.
In the csse OF Juugk 4 Fabian VI
Reed & Cr0pprr et ~ piAiutlti' M.
ion f0r Low thai OyvffUled, anu thirty
lays stay granted 10 perfect appeal.
Ia the case VI Won Marks 81 al w
/. II. sullivan st All 0;iJ o'clock, satur.
lay the lI.h, WAS iuset Tor hearing
no,i1u Tor q nov trial aud motion ~
ttax costs.