Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1895-05-26
CAUGHT FIVE.
Final Report of the Fed
eral Grand Jury
Neither Surprising Nor
Sensational.
A Veil of Secresy Thrown About
Two indictments.
A Motion to Set Aside the Ind1ct-
rents in the Tempe Bank
Embezziement Cases.

The United States grand jury at the
close of five day session made its first
and final report late yesterday after
noon and was discharged. The report
| contained nothing of sensations,
character and fewer indictments than
had been expected.
The indictments were returned
against three persons for violation of
the Edmunds law, two against persons
for selling liquor to Indians, and two
against persons for robbing the United
States mails, seven in all. Only five
were made public, those against de-
fendants in Jail or on bond.
They are Eugene Bicknell and Arthur
Q. Parsons, two boys who aimed at sud-
den wealth couple of months ago by
robbing postofice boxes. Ramon
Chavez and Jesus Valenzuela charged
with selling liquor to Indians and
John Davis the colored idol of couple
OF white women. Rather more in
terest was taken in Brother Johns case
than in any of the others. There was
no doubt that he would be indicted bus
there was a great deal of expressed
satisfaction when it was announced
that an Indictment had been found,
Five complaints were ignored by the
grand jury.
| All these figures taken together afford
an opportunity OF profitiess conjecture.
Altogether twelve cases were considered.
There were nine persons in the county
Jail. Therefore three of the cases
/ ignored were those of persons out of
jail. Who were they and with what
were they charged? Well, after all 1t
really makes no difference since they
are presumably Innocent.
On the civil side Of the territorial
court the most interesting event was
the filing of an affidavit bv Judge
Woodward, counsel for defendants r.
E. Daggs, W. L. VanHorn, P. P. Daggs,
P. B. McCabe and W. A. Daggs, against
whom altogether there are nineteen in
dictments for embeZzlement in connec-
tion with the Tempe bank failure. The
affidavit contained a motion to setssids
the indictments on the following
grounds:
First-That the defendants had no
opportunity to interpose chshenges
either to the panel or to any grand juror
upon the grand jury finding the in
dictments.
Second-That in the exercise OF such
: right the defendants could have
/ shown that grand jurors, Geo. n. Gags,
, E. 6. Frsnken berg, Geo. Atkinson, &,
L. Richards, P. K. hickey, Chas. Gold
man and James Woolf could not have
acted impartialfy and without preja-
, dice.
Third-Tnat a person other than tie
district attorney and the mem GERS oi
the grand jury and the witnesses was
, permitted to be present during the ses.
sion and who advised and counseled
the grand jury in the finding of the in-
dictments.
Fourth-That the indictments are
not drawn and subscribed to by.the
, district attorney, and lastly, that part
, of the grand jury was summoned by
.. one Geo. Compton. g bitter enemy Of
, the defendants.
f After presenting the motion to
set aside the indictments, judge
, Woodward said that in view of the un-
certainty as to the practice to be pur
= sued he would follow the decision Of
, the supreme court of California under
i a statute similar to that of this terri
: tory. Having read the decision he re-
: marked that he had refrained from
fling afidavits in each of the nineteen
indictments until the court should give
+ some intimation of the necessity, as te
do GO would result in call for an extra
room as filing spsca in the clerks office
, since the law requires the clerk t.
/ spread upon the minutes of the cour,
. the lengthy oral motion just made il
each case.
The court then asked Mr.. Bennett the
f assistant district attorney, what he had
| to say to this motion. Mr.. Bennett
/ said that in view OF the character of TIN
motion he desired time to consider i,
! and after some discussion tee court al
lowed the prosecution until 9 o'cioct
, on Tuesday morning to determine wha
course it would pursue.
Several other cases were aftefward
disposed OF. Among them was that O
{ Lybrook VS.. Minor appealed from s
1 Justices court. Judgment was rendered
, for the plaintiff.