The record-union., 1895-07-25

| the members OF the Grand Jury.
! 9. Because 1t does not appear therefrom
when the term OF said defendant began.
TO- Because it does not appear thereirom
how or iu what manner defendant be-
came elected or qualified or acting Super
| visor IS named in said complaint CIR
| accusation.
IL. That it does not appear therefrom
| how or in what manner said claim or &C.
count was not legally cnargeable against
the county of Sacramento, or was not
county charge.
| Il. Because II does not appear theretrOm
| how or IN what manner the said defend
ant well knew the same or whether he
knew the same as question OF fact or as
a question OF law.
Is. because it does not appear therefrom
| how or IN what manner said claim or ac-
count was not proper one to authorize
or audit or settle or allow, or in what
| manner or form the said defendant knew
the same.
ii. 1t does not appear therefrom how
or IN what manner the said defendant
violating or in violation of his official
duties as supervisor, did cast his vote
Tor the allowance and payment of said
claim, and the said complaint or accusa-
ton fails to state facts showing that he
willfuily so voted.
10. That said complaint or accusation
does not show how or in what manner
the said defendant corruptly did cast his
vote as such Supervisor in favor of the
allowance or payment of said claim, nor
any facts stated from which it can be de-
termlned that he did corruptly so vote
10. Because 1t does not appear from
SAID complaint Or accusation how or in
what manner he knowingly did cast his
vote for such claim, nor any facts stated
from which said inference may be drawn.
II. because it does not appear from
SAID complaint or accusation when or
where or how said vote as Supervisor
was cast.
Is. Because it does not appear from
said complaint or accusation how or in
what manner said claim was allowed or
ordered paid.
~. That said complaint or accusation
does not show how or in what manner
that by the casting of his said vote he be-
came or was guilty OF the willful or cor
rupt violation of his official duty.
~. Because 1t does not appear from
SAID complaint or accusation what facts
or circumstances constitute the corrup-
ton therein charged.
Il. because said complaint or accusa-
ton states simply conclusions of law and
does not state the facts upon which such
conclusions are based.
u. because II appears upon the face of
sad complaint or accusation that the
claim therein mentioned was @ proper
county charge and it was the duty OF the
defendant TO vote therefor.
-. Because il does not appear from
said complaint or accusation that said
claim was paid.
a. Because it does not appear from
SAID complaint or accusation what other
Supervisors voted tor said claim.
70. SAID complaint ana accusation Is in
direct and uncertain as to the offeuse
pharpAH ~
therefrom what oftense is charged or
wherein the defendant was guilty of cor
rupIlon or OF corrupt violation of his
duty, ana also III this: That the particular
circumstances of the otfense charged are
are not set out so that it can be told there-
from what facts or circumstances consti-
tute the corruption charged in said COM
plant or accusation.
70. That said complaint or accusation
does not contain statement OF the acts
constituting the Offense in ordinary aud
concise language, and In such a manner
rs 10 enable person OF common under
standing TO know what is intended.
II. mat said complaint or accusation
does not state any act or omission to such
degree OF certainty as TO enable the
court TO pronounce judgment upon q con-
ylctlon.
IS That the acts stated and complained
OIL III salu complaint or accusation did not
occur during the detendant's present
term OF Office, and his term of Office ex-
plred before the filing of said accusation
or complaint.
~. mat several causes of action have
Oeen improperly united in said COM
plant or accusation, and are not sepa-
rately stated, to wit:
|. An action for willful misconduct in
Office.
z An action for corrupt misconduct in
office. 80
81 Demurs specially to all that part Of
SAT- com plaihG or accusation In which it
Is alleged that the defendant corruptly
voted, because the same and each of said
separate allegations and statement of
oHenses tails to state the same in ordi-
nary ana concise language; that said
statement OF offeuses is not sufficient in
law and should be disregarded; because
the same and each fails 10 state fact or
iacts constituting an otfense oognizable
by law.
ii. Demurs specially to that part of
SAID complaint or accusation which al
IegeS that the defendant WilifuIly voted
Tor sald claim, because the same and each
OF said separate allegations and statement
OF 0Henses tails to state the same in ordi-
nary and concise language; that said
statement of otfenses is not sufficient in
law and should be dsregarded; because
the same fails TO state fact or facts con-
shutting an offense equitable by law.
81. Demurs specially to that part Of said
complaint or accusation which alleges
that the defendant knowingly voted for
SAID claim, because the said statement
tails to state the same in ordinary and
concise language, and that said statement
tails to state an Otfense cogniZable in law,
30. Because it does not appear therefrom
that said acts complained of were with
out or III excess of the jurisdiction of de-
PENDANT.
81. Because no facts are stated from
which 1t can be inferred that the said de-
1endant acted without or in excess of his
jurisdiction.
30. Because it affirmatively appears
upon the face of said accusation that said
acts were within his jurisdiction.
30 because no facts are stated from
which it can be inferred that the defend
ant acted willfully.
81. because no facts are stated from
which 1t can be inferred that the defend
ant acted knowingly.
IS. because no facts are stated from
which it can be inferred that the defend
ant acted corruptly.
80. because 1t appears that defendant
acted within the scope OF his duty and
performed his duty properly.
Wherefore, defendant prays that the
said complaint or accusation be dismissed.
=. L. JONES. DEVLIN " DEVLIN,
Attorneys for defendant
Mr.. Devlin then filed demurrer. OBJ
jecting to the legal sufiiciency of the ac-
cusation, and containing thirty nine diff
ferent objections. He announced him
self ready to argue the demurrer, but
Judge Holl objected that the demurrer
had not been served upon him. District
Attorney Ryan also thought the prosecu-
tiou ought TO have day or two In which
to examine the demurrer.
Mr.. Deylin was assisted in the defense
by =. L. Jones and j. w. Hughes, and
the former called attention TO the fact that
tka IF W I'D L